Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Coal Industry

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the extent of the resumption in normal working in National Coal Board mines and other installations.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I understand from the NCB that the return to normal working within the industry is well under way. Production and deliveries of coal have substantially increased.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he entirely satisfied that the way in which the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers misunderstood the short-term procedural adjustment last week has now been clarified by the NCB and that there is no ground for any industrial action?

Mr. Walker: If, following tomorrow's delegate conference, the NUM decides to resume its involvement in the normal consultative procedures between the NCB and the unions, the NCB would suggest that a meeting of the coal industry national consultative council should take place next week to discuss, among other matters, steps leading to the introduction of the modified colliery review procedure as soon as possible. Certainly the objective of the Government and of the NCB is that that modified procedure should come into effect as quickly as possible.

Mr. Foot: Has the right hon. Gentleman had his attention drawn to the headline in The Guardian today, which says:
Local management 'instructed to give union a hard time'. NCB 'launches closures drive against Nacods'"?
Even if those reports are one tenth true, are they not appalling? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman do something about the chairman of the board? He is not fit to be in charge of industrial relations in the coal industry in Britain. We know that in his notorious interview he boasted that he had no conversations with the Secretary of State. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman stop this madness from going on?

Mr. Walker: I had a meeting this morning on other matters with the chairman of the NCB. He has no knowledge of the items mentioned in The Guardian or the sources from which they came. It may be that there are

those who are involved in stirring up mishief around this subject. The chairman of the NCB is anxious that the modified procedure that he agreed with NACODS should come into operation as swiftly as possible.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Secretary of State reconsider the whole matter? I spoke to the general secretary of NACODS a little while ago, and the situation is grave. Will the Secretary of State not merely rely on the comments offered by the NCB, but have a further meeting with NACODS? He will recognise that I am not particularly interested in seeing strife in the coalfield. We have seen enough of that. A grave situation is developing, and it requires urgent attention.

Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have always been willing to see any trade union connected with my Department at any time and have always done so. That applies to NACODS, the NUM or any other union. With regard to the present dispute, the pronouncements coming out of NACODS and the pit closure in south Wales, I can only say that two weeks ago the south Wales area director met all the unions to discuss the prospects for that pit. The unions called for a technical inspection, which was made two days later. In the light of that inspection the board expressed the view that there were no prospects for the pit. The NUM's response was that the rundown should be dealt with quickly and that voluntary redundancies should be initiated immediately as that would benefit the miners concerned. A majority of NUM members at the pit voted in support of that. If the Coal Board had rejected that request and taken no notice of it, we should have been strongly criticised by the NUM.

Mr. Nicholls: Has my right hon. Friend noted reports in the Daily Mail at the end of last week which suggested that those miners who had applied for transfers to areas where they would not be victimised were having their applications processed slowly? Can he assure us that that matter will be looked at and that those who have applied to move to other areas to ensure that they will not be victimised will be dealt with speedily?

Mr. Walker: I assure my hon. Friend that the NCB is looking into all individual cases. It has set up a Freefone system and is looking into every possible case. If any form of intimidation is taking place, the important thing is to stop the intimidation. The NCB is taking a great deal of action — it has set up a special unit — and I hope that it will succeed.

Mr. Ron Davies: Will the Secretary of State reconsider his previous answers? He referred to Bedwas colliery in my constituency and to the fact that an underground inspection took place a fortnight ago last Wednesday. Is he aware that while that inspection was taking place the pit manager was interviewing members of the NUM on the surface and that offers of transfer or redundancy were made before any firm decision had been taken or discussions had taken place on a review procedure? Is he further aware that the NCB's actions in south Wales are regarded as being deliberately precipitate and provocative? Will he tell us whether either the modified review procedure or the existing review procedure with NACODS will be used before there are further pit closures?

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) referred earlier to The Guardian, and


I see from that paper today that the president of the NUM in south Wales has made it clear that the NUM was in favour of the closure taking place there. He said that he would not support any NACODS strike that stopped that taking place. In the case of Bedwas, a considerable majority of the miners recognise that prospects for that pit are poor. By agreement between the NUM and the board, transfers to other pits and voluntary redundancies are already being arranged. That seems much more acceptable than simply laying men off because there is no work for them to do. By its nature, this is an interim arrangement. If, as a result of its continuing assessment, the board judges that the pit must remain closed, the procedures and agreements that relate to closure will, of course, be fully operative.

Mr. Wallace: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is still great concern in the Scottish coalfields, where there has not been what could be called a normal resumption of work because of what appears to be the intransigence of the Coal Board management and, in particular, its unwillingness to discuss individual cases of dismissed men, many of whom seem to have been dismissed for trivial reasons? Will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices to urge common sense on the management of the NCB in Scotland and, particularly, to urge the management to use the conciliation procedures to examine individual cases of sacked miners?

Mr. Walker: When normal working resumes, as I hope that it will later this week, all the procedures available within the Coal Board will be available to any person involved in dismissal.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Knowing the concern throughout the Conservative party about employment, does my right hon. Friend agree that reduced energy costs would have a direct benefit on employment costs, and does he also agree that a campaign of sabotage or non-cooperation underground would do great damage to the coal industry and to the nation generally?

Mr. Walker: I certainly agree that it is in the interests of every miner and everybody connected with the mining industry to see that it succeeds.

Mr. Orme: Does what the Secretary of State has said today about the NACODS agreement mean that there will be no more closures before the modified review procedure is in place? We want a categorical answer to that question. The answer is not clear from what has been said, certainly by the NCB. For example, will the 10 pits in south Wales for which closure is forecast go through the modified review procedure? The Secretary of State's views are before the House. He said that the agreement was sacrosanct. Is it still sacrosanct?

Mr. Walker: Yes, certainly. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that when the NCB put its proposals to the TUC it made it clear that, in the event of a failure to agree on those procedures by, I think, 1 June, the normal procedures, as exist at the moment, would have to go on. Obviously we will not agree to the NUM having a right to veto all future pit closures if it rejects the details of any NACODS procedures. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a valid and fair point. The proposal put to the TUC is still the basis of the NCB's view. I said earlier that we wish to get down to discussing the details of that agreement next week.
I have been asked about pit closures between then and now. The only two closures involved are at pits where there is no possibility of men working because the coal faces have been destroyed as a result of the strike. If the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with the south Wales NUM and is against those men being given voluntary redundancies, he should say so.

National Energy Policy

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will now initiate discussions on the formulation of a national energy policy.

Mr. Peter Walker: I shall continue to discuss all aspects of national energy policy as appropriate.

Mr. Hamilton: As there is now the possibility of an expedited pit closure programme, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the £10 million currently assigned for the economic and social consequences of such a programme will be almost immediately vastly increased? That money could be spent in Fife alone, let alone in coalfields throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Walker: I repeat that I am anxious for NCB (Enterprise) Limited to have considerable success. I realise that if it is successful it will need considerably more finance that has been made available so far. I have always made it clear that it is absurd to allocate to that organisation money that it has not yet spent. However, I am pleased to say that 10 allocations of funds have, I think, already been approved. There are many more applicants, and I certainly wish to see that body adequately financed.

Mr. Skeet: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the last attempt to have a national energy policy was in 1978? Does he agree that flexibility is the most important thing, and that it would therefore be unwise to lay down clear objectives now?

Mr. Walker: I think that there is something more positive than that. This country is fortunate enough to have considerable offshore oil and gas industries. We also have a considerable ability in mining machinery, coal mining and nuclear power.
All of those factors have a substantial international application. I am anxious to ensure that in all those areas the options are kept open and active, and that they are applied internationally to the maximum.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Cannot those options be kept open and the uncertainty faced while still publishing some objectives and priorities? Do not most well organised big businesses have corporate plans which run for, say, a five-year period and which can be revised every year or so, taking into account the differing circumstances?

Mr. Walker: I can only unfairly and unreasonably remind the hon. Gentleman that the Labour party, which he used to support, had such a corporate plan and that every one of its projections proved to be wrong.

Mr. Orme: Before we go for a new policy, we need to clarify the present situation. The Secretary of State did not answer my question. Mr. McNestry went to the High Court—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would stick to the subject of question No. 2 and not return to question No. 1.

Mr. Orme: But, Mr. Speaker, I—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the same rule must apply to both Front Benchers and Back Benchers. Will he please relate his question to question No. 2?

Mr. Orme: The point is that in order to obtain the sort of new energy policy that the question mentions, we must clarify the present position. The Secretary of State did not answer the question about the modified review procedure or about what Mr. McNestry told me concerning the present procedure not being carried out. When will the Government carry it out?

Mr. Walker: I repeat that the NCB wishes to get down to negotiating and talking about the modified procedure, if possible, next week. Earlier, there was a lot of shouting and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not hear me. However, I repeat that, with regard to the Bedwas pit, an interim arrangement has been made at the request of the NUM. If, as a result of its continuing assessment, the board judges that the pit must remain closed, the procedures and agreements relating to closures will be fully operative.

Energy Audit Schemes

Mr. Deakins: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what action is being taken by his Department to promote energy audit schemes.

Mr. Barron: asked the Secretary of State for Energy how much grant-aid was provided by his Department to the home energy advice and treatment scheme.

Mr. Haynes: asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many customers took up survey offers under the home energy advice and treatment pilot scheme in the east midlands.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): There are 50 per cent. grants available for energy efficiency surveys of non-domestic premises. We have also supported the initial commercial development of the home energy audit, carried out by professionals — surveyors and valuers — a do-it-yourself audit and a semi-personalised audit relating to house type and fuel in conjunction with a commercial promotion. My Department provided a 49 per cent. grant for the home energy audit scheme to enable the company to prepare for and conduct a commercial pilot of the scheme in the east midlands.
There have been 500 inquiries about the scheme, which have resulted in 56 audits and labels to date. The company is evaluating the market research on the pilot and I now await a report.

Mr. Deakins: Are the operation and value for money of the home energy advice and treatment scheme being reviewed? Is the Secretary of State willing to learn from the successful experience of many local authorities, but especially from Newcastle upon Tyne, on this matter?

Mr. Hunt: Yes, Sir. Home energy audit is a relatively new, but important, area for this country. The Government believe that these systems should be developed on a commercial basis, and have been prepared to provide grants towards testing the commercial viability of what are novel developments. The pilot scheme was important and we have much to learn from it.

Mr. Barron: Will the Minister be a little more definite about contact with the public sector? Has his Department been in touch with the Greater London council, which is advising local authorities on this matter, or with the Newcastle city council, which is advising tenants about audits on energy efficiency? What contact has his Department had with the public sector and what does he think should follow from that?

Mr. Hunt: My right hon. Friend and I have had considerable contact with local authorities, which are developing a number of interesting systems, some of which I have been able to see for myself.

Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister proud of what he has done under the scheme, bearing in mind that it was introduced last October? The Government continue to tell us that they must spend money wisely. As they spent £50,000 advertising the scheme, is the Minister proud of the fact that only a small number of people have taken up the offer? When will he get off his backside and really do something?

Mr. Hunt: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that, looking back on what has happened, it appears that the pilot scheme was not successful in itself, but it has been a very valuable experiment from which we must learn as much as possible.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my hon. Friend aware that one reason why the pilot scheme was not successful in the east midlands was that the motivation did not appear to be only of cost benefit but of domestic convenience? Will he look at the experience in the United States, where the gas, electricity and coal undertakings handle those inquiries, rather than surveyors?

Mr. Hunt: Yes, of course.

Mr. Speller: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that most complaints relate to high fuel bills and that energy audits lead directly to lower bills, lower fuel consumption and ultimately the need for fewer new power stations and capacity, all of which are eminently desirable?

Mr. Hunt: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Several thousand consumers have applied for the do-it-yourself home audit, which we have supported with the Open University and Channel 4. Several thousand more have applied for our semi-personalised audit on offer in a commercial promotion. Therefore, a major campaign of publicity and information does help the home owner to an awareness of what he can achieve.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for the Environment has cut home insulation grant expenditure by 15 per cent.? Is he further aware that the Secretary of State for Wales has cut home insulation expenditure by 25 per cent., therefore depriving almost 13,000 households in Wales of the possibility of home insulation? How does he square all the fine words, breakfasts, and audits with the action of other Ministers who are cutting back on the most effective and simple form of energy insulation and saving — home insulation grants?

Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been no cut. We have the same amount to spend this year as we had last year.

Coal Industry

4. Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has had any discussions with the chairman of the National Coal Board or others with regard to the possible privatisation or development of cooperatives of the coal industry or part or parts of the coal industry.

Mr. Peter Walker: No, Sir.

Mr. Marlow: Is there any fundamental reason why the United Kingdom-based oil industry should not be nationalised, but the coal industry should be nationalised? Will my right hon. Friend tell us what changes he would like to see in ownership and organisation in this monolithic nationalised monopoly, vital as it is, in 10 years' time on 1 April 1995 in the sixteenth year of our right hon. Friend's premiership?

Mr. Walker: There were few things on which I agreed with Lord Wilson of Rievaulx when he was Prime Minister, but I cherish his statement about a week in politics being a long time. To give my views about happenings in 10 years from now would not be a sensible step for me to take.

Mr. Heifer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance that the report issued by the Conservative party, emanating from a committee under the chairmanship of the present Secretary of State for Transport in 1978, is now repudiated by the Government and that there will not be any suggestion of privatising the coal industry? Will he say clearly, therefore, that from now on the miners, NACODS and all others involved in the industry can rest assured that public ownership of the industry will continue and that that report is dead and buried?

Mr. Walker: I did not read that report because, during the period concerned, I was in that charming place, which the hon. Gentleman knows well, called the wilderness. I have always made it clear that I would be willing to consider ways in which there could be greater participation on the part of those employed in the industry.

Fast Breeder Reactors

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement about progress on the European collaborative project for the development of fast breeder reactors.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): We are continuing to make good progress.

Mr. Maclennan: In view of the expectation that both France and Germany will build commercial fast breeder reactors before this country does, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that we have a fair share of the research and development work on this collaborative programme and that we build on the expertise accumulated over the years at Dounreay? In particular, are the Government pressing for the location at Dounreay of a fuel reprocessing plant?

Mr. Goodlad: The participating organisations have already signed several of the agreements setting the detailed framework of the collaboration, and other agreements are being negotiated. As the hon. Gentleman

knows, the United Kingdom is already in the forefront of fast reactor technology and has made a major contribution to the collaboration, in particular through the work at Dounreay. No decisions have yet been taken on the timing or siting of a commercial demonstration fast reactor for the collaboration. My right hon. Friend will make an announcement on reprocessing in due course.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Does the discussion with the Europeans include collaboration on the decommissioning of nuclear power stations, which is a most expensive business? It might be helpful to reduce costs if there were such collaboration with other countries.

Mr. Goodland: Yes, Sir. All aspects of the project are being discussed.

Community Heating Programmes

Mr. Ron Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what resources his Department is devoting to studies of community heating programmes.

Mr. David Hunt: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced his willingness to make grants towards studies of the prospects for combined heat and power and district heating schemes in Belfast, Edinburgh and Leicester. Grants are available under the energy efficiency survey scheme towards the cost of energy efficiency surveys of central boiler plants serving community heated dwellings.

Mr. Davies: Will the Minister confirm that, for technical and cost reasons, the most likely form of fuel for CHP schemes will be coal and that that is a further good reason why the future of the industry should be safeguarded? Will he also confirm that in planning future CHP schemes there will be a presumption in favour of the use of coal?

Mr. Hunt: I readily agree that where coal is involved it is indeed an economic scheme, and the Government want combined heat and power schemes to go ahead where they are economically viable. We believe that that is best achieved by the involvement of the private sector. The Government are prepared to assist in the initial development of these schemes.

Mr. Rost: Where CHP feasibility studies show a higher rate of return than alternative supply investment by the nationalised industries, should they not be allowed to go ahead in the interests of providing cheaper energy to consumers?

Mr. Hunt: I shall consider carefully what my hon. Friend has said. We are at an early stage in all these schemes, but I shall be monitoring the results carefully.

Energy Efficiency

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what further initiatives he proposes to take to encourage energy efficiency.

Mr. Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has decided to make 1986 the year of energy efficiency.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is considering designating 1986 as energy conservation year.

Mr. Walker: I am delighted at the progress that we have made during this past year. More than 14,000 senior executives have attended our early morning briefing meetings, there has been a 50 per cent. increase in extended survey scheme applications and a 300 per cent. increase in voluntary insulation projects for low-income households.
There is however, very much more progress to be made. I have decided to make 1986 an energy efficiency year in which I hope the Government, major energy utilities and industry will combine together to make a further considerable impact towards obtaining far higher standards of energy efficiency in this country.

Mr. Chapman: I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision, which will underline in the most effective way the need to improve energy use and conservation. Will he confirm that we are talking about the possibility of saving thousands of millions of pounds through the more effective use of energy? For example, in offices and shops it would be possible to save energy to the value of £500 million.

Mr. Walker: The energy bill is about £35 billion. If we operated to the best standards that are being implemented in other countries, there would be a saving of £7 billion a year. There is enormous potential for improving our economic efficiency and it is an area in which every effort should be made.

Mr. Hannam: I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept my congratulations on the progress that has been made in industrial sectors during the year. In the forthcoming year of energy saving, will he concentrate on an area in which probably the greatest potential for energy saving exists—the public sector? Will he make a special endeavour to co-ordinate the activities of local authorities and health authorities so as to make their officials more energy-conscious?

Mr. Walker: Yes. The local authorities' advisory organisation on efficiency, LAMSAC, has said that sensible energy efficient management services would reduce the rate bill by about £100 million a year. There is enormous potential within the NHS to improve energy saving. We shall do everything possible to co-ordinate the public sector to make the most progress that we can.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that local authorities are given sufficient funds by the Department of the Environment to enable them to fund worthwhile local installations in energy-efficient schemes?

Mr. Walker: Yes. This is an area in which substantial progress has been made by the better local authorities. There is much to be done by the rest of the country and we shall be giving every possible encouragement to achieve further progress.

Mr. Eastham: Is it not a fact that many organisations are confronted with an asbestos problem? Will the right hon. Gentleman say what research is being undertaken and what advice is being given so that alternatives can be found that offer a degree of efficiency that is equal to that of asbestos?

Mr. Walker: I cannot be specific, because I must confess that I have not examined this issue in any detail. However, I shall do so and thereafter I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wallace: Is the Secretary of State aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends will welcome the introduction of the year of energy efficiency in 1986? How much additional new money will be forthcoming from the Government to promote energy efficiency projects? Will the real value of home insulation grants be maintained in 1986?

Mr. Walker: The range covered by Government grants is quite considerable, including energy surveys, development programmes and research programmes. The majority of the savings to be made do not need Government support, in the sense that they are remunerative in themselves. About £300 million-worth of capital investment could be made by industry, which would bring a return of more than 100 per cent.

Mr. Orme: What about home insulation? Surely that is one of the most simple and understandable means of achieving greater energy efficiency. Britain lags behind most other Western countries on energy efficiency. Why does the Secretary of State not co-operate with other Departments on these issues?

Mr. Walker: We are collaborating with other Departments. As I said in my answer to the main question, there has been a 300 per cent. increase in one year in voluntary insulation projects for low-income households. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will rejoice in that.

Substitute Natural Gas Project

Mr. Pike: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if, when he next meets the chairman of British Gas, he proposes to discuss the substitute natural gas project.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Mick Buchanan-Smith): My right hon. Friend and I regularly discuss with the chairman a variety of matters concerning the gas industry.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that there is a great future for substitute natural gas made from coal? To make the best use of our energy resources, and to achieve our potential in export markets, should we not be giving the green light to British Gas, saying, "Go ahead with the home market," so that we can obtain advantages from exporting?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: British Gas research into substitution is of an extremely high standard. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point. There is considerable export potential. In looking towards the end of the century, Britain is fortunate in having adequate supplies of natural gas and access to liquefied natural gas. That means that we shall not need substitute natural gas for some time, but I agree that the research that has been done so far has been well worth while.

Mr. Skeet: Does my right hon. Friend agree that coal priced at £48 a tonne and rising would make it totally uneconomic to go ahead with this proposition? It will become economic at the beginning of the next century, rather than at the end of this century.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I, too, shall not look towards the end of this century. At the moment, substitute natural gas is uneconomic compared with other fuels. None the less, the work that is being done can benefit Britain, not least in terms of export potential.

Mr. Eadie: Why is the right hon. Gentleman so shy about saying to the nation, "We do not have to invent the technology of synthetic North sea gas"? We already have the technology. Should not the right hon. Gentleman be telling the House that, since we have already invented that technology, at Westfield, the nation should be considering ways and means of using it—through coal?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Taking account of current NCB prices for substitute natural gas, present costs are running at about 45p a therm. If that is the price that the hon. Gentleman wants to charge industry and commerce, let him say so.

British Gas Corporation

Mr. Eggar: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to denationalise the British Gas Corporation.

M. Buchanan-Smith: During the past year the sale of the British Gas interest in Wytch Farm and the flotation of Enterprise Oil have been successfully carried through. The possibilities for further introduction of private capital into the gas industry will continue to be examined.

Mr. Eggar: In view of the Government's clear commitment to continue examinations along these lines, how soon will my right hon. Friend be able to come forward with concrete proposals?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As soon as decisions are taken.

Mr. Rowlands: We hope that they are not taken during the lifetime of this Parliament. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government do not propose during this Parliament to go ahead with any sale of gas showrooms and do intend to introduce the safety legislation that is required? Will the right hon. Gentleman give us one piece of information about the existing privatisation Act? How many consents has the right hon. Gentleman approved under the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act, which was passed three years ago to provide for private transmission lines for gas?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I assure the hon. Gentleman that as soon as any decisions on inclusions are reached they will be announced to the House. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman regarding his second question. I understand that there are plans for an onshore field to supply gas to two industrial users.

Alternative Energy sources

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he proposes to have further discussions with the European Community Council of Ministers about alternative sources of energy.

Mr. David Hunt: Discussions are expected on alternative energy sources at a Council of Energy Ministers on 10 June.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that research into alternative energy sources should increasingly be undertaken on a Community basis?

Mr. Hunt: Yes. We are continuing to give positive and substantial support to those renewables that are the most promising for the United Kingdom. Our views broadly coincide with those of our Community partners. I had the

opportunity to discuss these matters with Dr. H. Eliasmöller, the head of the division on alternative sources in the European Commission, when I met him at the opening of the wind turbine generator in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller).

NCB (Investment)

Mr. Maude: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he is next planning to discuss investment with the chairman of the National Coal Board.

Mr. Peter Walker: I meet the chairman of the National Coal Board regularly to discuss many issues, including the very substantial investment that the Government are making in the coal industry.

Mr. Maude: Will my right hon. Friend consider with the NCB chairman the desirability of proceeding swiftly to investment in the south Warkwickshire coalfield, as this offers one prospect of providing the lowest cost coal in the United Kingdom, which would go a long way towards reducing the overall cost of coal and do a great deal to regenerate the industry?

Mr. Walker: I shall convey my hon. Friend's views to the NCB chairman. The NCB is looking on a regional basis to all the prospects and priorities for investment throughout the coalfields.

Mr. Ryman: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss investment, will he raise the topic of the National Coal Board's asinine policy of lack of investment in the north-east of England? In particular, will he point out to the chairman that two years ago the north-east director of the NCB invested £2 million for new pit props for Bates's colliery, Blyth in respect of a seam which he now proposes to close, creating 800 redundancies?

Mr. Walker: I know that the chairman of the National Coal Board is anxious to retain the capacity for production in the north-east, where there is a strong demand for coal. He has made the appropriate surveys to see how much new investment will be needed to achieve that objective.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Honourable Members (Work Load)

Mr. Dubs: asked the Lord Privy Seal how he assesses the present work load of hon. Members; and how this compares with his assessment in 1981.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): There is no statistical basis upon which such a comparison could be made.

Mr. Dubs: Despite the lack of such a statistical basis, does the Leader of the House agree that the work load of the average Member of the House has increased enormously in recent years and is now such that the resources that we have — one secretary and 0·2 of a research assistant — are woefully inadequate? We are thus the laughing stock of members of every other Parliament and democratically elected assembly the world over. Will he consider sympathetically the plea that we should be given the resources to do our jobs properly?

Mr. Biffen: I do not believe that we are the laughing stock of every other elected assembly in western Europe


and North America. I would sooner be that than be held in ridicule by those who voted us here and who think that we have perfectly reasonable facilities for undertaking our present work. The present position, which was voted by the House last year, was in respect of a secretarial, research assistant and office level of allowance, which is increased each year by an agreed formula. That is subject to fundamental review once every four years. I believe that that is a reasonable basis on which to proceed.

Mr. Stokes: I agree with what my right hon. Friend has said. Is he aware that hon. Members' work loads were far less in the old days at the time of England's greatness? For instance, in those days there was no autumn Session, because of the bad state of the roads and partly because of the necessity for hon. Members to get in some shooting and hunting.

Mr. Biffen: It may have related to the necessity for Members to do some shooting, but if my hon. Friend undertakes even closer researches he will find that Parliament rarely rose in time for the Twelfth.

Mr. Foster: Does the Leader of the House realise that the facilities available to Members of the House are completely inadequate to begin to control the Executive? It is not at all surprising to Opposition Members that members of the Government do not want those facilities increased, because they do not want the Executive to be probed.

Mr. Biffen: The level of the secretarial, research assistant and office allowance was a level voted by the House, and the formula which governs its annual adjustment was also voted by the House last year. It is subject to a review every four years, and I believe that to be a reasonable balance in these matters.

Mr. Aitken: If we are to have the opportunity for more hunting and shooting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) suggests, may I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that we set up as our quarry some of the public relations men who orchestrate completely phoney lobbies and campaigns which unnecessarily add to hon. Members' work loads? Will he study this matter as a serious issue, as well as an amusing one this afternoon?

Mr. Biffen: No words of mine should ever be interpreted as suggesting that more time should be made available for those hon. Members who enjoy hunting and shooting. I was only anxious to point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) that he has a somewhat mistaken view of the position in the past. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) raises a serious point about the factors that make for our work here. Of course, it is something that we all keep under review.

Mr. Ewing: Is the Leader of the House aware that the work load of hon. Members has increased by reason of the stupid and idiotic decisions made by the Prime Minister, particularly in transferring the international football match from Wembley to Hampden Park? Will the Leader of the House use his good influence in telling the Prime Minister to work harder on getting the unemployed back to work, and to keep her silly nose out of things that she has nothing to do with?

Mr. Biffen: I will not say that it was an own goal, but I do not think it was a straight score.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the Leader of the House undertake to have installed, for the benefit of hon. Members, a telex on which we can both receive and send messages, as it is extremely unsatisfactory for them to have to receive their private messages from local authorities through the Cabinet Office before briefings with Ministers?

Mr. Biffen: I think that the hon. Gentleman was trying to give me a message in the rather oblique way in which he concluded his question. The installing of a telex would have to be considered in the first instance by the Services Committee. If the hon. Gentleman is serious on the matter, doubtless he will be in touch with me.

Mr. Dickens: It is common knowledge that no one works harder in this place for his constituents than yours truly, but, notwithstanding that, is it not a fact that there is no shortage of people wishing to be Members of Parliament and no shortage of people canvassing for votes at election time? How can the question be taken seriously? We ask people in industry to roll up their sleeves and work hard for the country, but Members of Parliament are rather workshy.

Mr. Biffen: I have no desire to put the argument in the somewhat crude and bruising terms of my hon. Friend. We have allowances which we ourselves have voted, they are subject to annual adjustments by a formula which we ourselves have voted, and the Government have said that there may be a fundamental review once every four years. Again I say that I think that that is a very reasonable and balanced judgment.

Mr. Shore: The Lord Privy Seal is extraordinarily complacent in his remarks about the facilities and research assistance available to hon. Members. It is not worries about the work load that concern hon. Members on either side of the House but the desire to be able to perform their duties properly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) rightly said, hon. Members wish to exercise full control, as far as they can, over the Executive. That is what makes us wish to be able to perform our duties more effectively than we can at present. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will bear that in mind. If the Lord Privy Seal cannot measure the work load as such, perhaps he can at least give us some answers as to how far that part of our work load which is taken up by Government legislation and by the sittings of the House has increased in the past few years.

Mr. Biffen: On the right hon. Gentleman's last question, I refer him to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) on 11 March. It is clearly a matter for judgment within the House as to the extent to which we require facilities to enable us to do our job, but ultimately it is resolutions of the House that have determined what now appertains. On the last occasion on which there was a vote, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) suggested a figure 40 per cent. higher than was then proposed, and he was defeated by a vote of this House.

Mr. Dubs: By the payroll.

Research and Secretarial Allowances

Mr. Chris Smith: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has any plans to propose improvements in the level of research and secretarial allowances for hon. Members.

Mr. Biffen: The resolution of the House of 20 July 1984 provides for the secretarial, research assistance and office expenses allowance to be automatically adjusted on 1 April in line with the pay of senior personal secretaries in the Civil Service.

Mr. Smith: Is the Leader of the House aware that, when the vote was taken in this House last summer, those who voted in favour of the motion were almost entirely on the Government payroll, and that many Back Benchers on both sides voted for a substantial increase in the secretarial and research allowance? Will the Leader of the House tell us when the four-year review is to take place, and whether he will listen to the demands from Back Benches on both sides of the House for a major increase in the facilities available to hon. Members?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman is a tolerably fair controversialist in this matter. I hope that he will not disenfranchise the payroll vote merely because it is payroll. If he refreshes his memory from the voting list, he will find that many Back Benchers voted and by no means in only one Lobby. On his second point, of course I shall be happy to consult ahead of the time when a more fundamental review takes place.

House of Lords (Allowances)

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in the light of the increasing work load on Members of the House of Lords, Her Majesty's Government will seek to improve their allowances.

Mr. Biffen: The various allowances increase automatically as determined by the appropriate resolutions of the House of Lords.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that democracy is at great peril under the current dictatorship of the Prime Minister, particularly at local level, and the only way that that can be thwarted is along the Corridor in the House of Lords? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that democracy has a high price, and that it is will worth while paying that high price to safeguard democracy?

Mr. Biffen: The fact that it is alleged that democracy is at risk, the fact that it is asserted that along the Corridor there is some effective watchdog, the fact that this is the last Parliament in which the hon. Gentleman will be serving, and the fact that, according to the Daily Mirror and what the Leader of the Opposition said on TV AM, the House of Lords will not be scrapped in Labour's first five years—all those facts lead me to think that where David Kirkwood trod in the past, the hon. Gentleman will be happy to follow.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Principals and Assistant Secretaries

Mr. Tim Eggar: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he intends to take any action in the light of the number of principals and assistant secretaries who have left the Civil Service in the past two years.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): The number of assistant secretaries who have resigned has remained roughly constant over the past five years. The number of principals who have resigned has increased slightly. Those resigning represent a very small proportion of the overall numbers employed in those grades. Resignations at that level will continue to be carefully monitored, but no special action is considered necessary at present.

Mr. Eggar: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reassurance, because the trend could become worrying. However, will he now use that information as further ammunition to press forward with the introduction of merit pay within the service and also further delegation of decision-taking down the hierarchy in the service?

Mr. Hayhoe: I am glad that my hon. Friend has recognised that the numbers resigning are very small. For principals under 40 the figure is about one in 50 and for those over 40 it is well under 1 per cent. I agree with my hon. Friend that the experiment that we are conducting on merit pay may well be helpful. I also agree with his comments about extending merit pay if the experiment that we are now conducting proves its worth.

Mr. Williams: Is it not a fact that there has been a marked fall-off in the quality and quantity of graduates now applying for posts in the Civil Service? Is not that reduction in applications the consequence of the continuous public campaign of contempt to which the Prime Minister has subjected the Civil Service?

Mr. Hayhoe: Neither the first nor the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is correct.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: What has happened with regard to the amount of overtime worked by civil servants in those grades recently? Has it not increased substantially? Is that not wrong at a time when people are searching for jobs and when morale in the Civil Service is so low?

Mr. Hayhoe: Overtime is not taken particularly into account for assistant secretaries and principals. They work the hours that are necessary to carry out their duties. In my experience of people of that grade, they are very dedicated indeed in the service that they give.

Dr. McDonald: Is not the Minister's reply rather too complacent? Is he not aware that there now has to be competition for post at principal level, which is a key grade? Is he not further aware that, looking to the future for the fast-stream graduate entry, it is now much more difficult for the Civil Service to obtain the lawyers, accountants, economists and statisticians who are needed? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is due to the unprecedentedly low level of morale in the Civil Service brought about by low pay and the autocratic style of management, coupled with the attack on trade union rights of civil servants? Is it not time that the Minister was much less complacent?

Mr. Hayhoe: I do not believe that the hon. Lady's exaggerated language is justified, but I agree that there are certain specialist recruits whom we have some difficulty in attracting. Equally, however, it is important that the Civil Service should not be seen to take more than its fair share of the bright young talent available to the country.

Unions (Meetings)

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Minister for the Civil Service on how many occasions he met representatives of the Civil Service unions in 1984.

Mr. Hayhoe: Other than informally, on seven occasions.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: As we have the most dedicated and efficient and the least corrupt Civil Service in the world, would it not be fair and reasonable for our Civil Service to have some pay procedure to guarantee civil servants a fair deal in pay and conditions so that they do not have to resort to the industrial action that they all thoroughly deplore?

Mr. Hayhoe: I endorse the compliment paid to the Civil Service by my hon. Friend. On the question of an agreed system for examining Civil Service pay, my hon. Friend will recall that we had a report from the Megaw commission. The Government remain willing to discuss such matters—there have already been many discussions — to try to find some satisfactory system for determining Civil Service pay.

Mr. Dalyell: Whatever the unions said about the pernicious experiment with merit awards, is not the brutal truth of the matter that those who give honest and careful but unpalatable advice to Ministers are potentially at a disadvantage as compared to ministerial arse-lickers?

Mr. Hayhoe: No, there is nothing to suggest that that is true.

Mr. Eggar: Can my hon. Friend say whether there is a ban on secondments to the Civil Service? If so, will the ban be temporary?

Mr. Hayhoe: I have seen reports to that effect in some of today's papers. So far as I am aware, they are pure speculation.

Mr. Estham: Has the Minister had a meeting with the unions about civil servants and the closing of the skillcentres? If so, would he care to tell us what he said at the meeting? We know that many of the skillcentres to be closed are profitable.

Mr. Hayhoe: That matter was not raised at any of my meetings with the Civil Service unions. If the unions had wished to discuss the matter, it would have been appropriate for them to raise it with the Secretary of State for Employment.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: As the Civil Service Minister, is the hon. Gentleman responsible for answering questions about Mr. Levene?

Mr. Hayhoe: That would depend on the question. Broadly speaking, as Mr. Levene is working with the Ministry of Defence, I believe that most questions would properly be addressed to the Secretary of State for Defence. If the question is relevant to my responsibilities, I shall of course answer it, as I always do.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Combined Heat and Power Schemes

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Energy, when he last met the Combined Heat and Power Association to discuss city combined heat and power schemes.

Mr. David Hunt: My right hon. Friend attended the launch of the association in November 1983, and the Department's Ministers and officials have had regular contact with the Combined Heat and Power Association.

Mr. Rost: As I know that my hon. Friend wishes to encourage city combined heat and power, will he talk to the Combined Heat and Power Association about the main obstacle — unfair competition from the taxpayer-subsidised nationalised industries? If my hon. Friend expects private consortia to develop combined heat and power by raising money in the market place, he cannot expect them to show their competitive advantage against other energy systems developed by the nationalised industries, which are able to invest at rates of return far lower than commercial rates.

Mr. Hunt: Yes, I will. The Government have removed, through the Energy Act 1983, most of the legislative barriers to the development of CHP, but there will be uncertainty about economic returns in these early days. The Government have helped to reduce those uncertainties by making available some financial help to enable local consortia to carry forward a thorough investigation of market potential over the next year or so.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister assure the House that, if there is any agreement about combined heat and power with any authority or other industry, he will make sure that the word "sacrosanct" is not used in it? If it is, the other parties will run away laughing, because they do not believe the Government.

Mr. Hunt: I treat that comment with the contempt that it deserves.

Energy Efficiency

Mr. Wallace: asked the Secretary of State for Energy by what criteria he intends to measure improvements in energy efficiency in the United Kingdom in the current year.

Mr. David Hunt: The overall annual improvement in United Kingdom energy efficiency can be estimated by comparing the level of energy consumption with that of the preceding year, after making allowances for changes in the level of economic activity, temperature, structure of the economy and any other known factors affecting energy demand.

Mr. Wallace: It was implicit in the answer by the Secretary of State a few moments ago that no new money was being made available in energy efficiency year. To dispel a rapidly growing impression that this might be a gimmick, using the criteria suggested by the Minister, what targets are being set for energy efficiency year 1986?

Mr. Hunt: My right hon. Friend has made that clear already. We have 14,000 senior executives attending early morning briefings. We have a 50 per cent. increase in the


extended survey schemes. We have greater energy efficiency in commercial and industrial buildings reaching more than 150,000 senior executives. This demonstrates that there is not only great potential but that this Government, through the pioneering and enthusiastic work of my right hon. Friend, are leading the way towards a more energy-efficient nation.

Mr. Hardy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does it arise out of Questions?

Mr. Hardy: Yes, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that the Secretary of State for Energy, quite properly and courteously, informed the House that when he answered Question No. 9 he was also answering Questions Nos. 23 and 25, which had been tabled by the hon. Members for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). By 10 minutes past three, we had reached Question No. 13, and in the last few minutes of Question Time we dealt with another two Energy questions. It means that the hon. Members for Exeter and for Wells would not otherwise have had their questions answered, even if we had had a reasonable amount of time, and that they were thereby given an opportunity to ask supplementary questions, whereas hon. Members who had tabled Questions Nos. 15 to 22 were prevented from asking them. Will you look into this matter and offer the House a ruling?

Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter for me if Ministers link questions. But I repeat that I, too, link questions in my own mind. I was able to call five hon. Members whose questions dealt with subjects which were broadly linked, if they were not on exactly the same subject. I think that the hon. Member was one of them.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was not it unprecedented for the Minister to link Question No. 9 with Nos. 23 and 25? Is it not significant that the two questions with which the original Question No. 9 was linked had been tabled by Conservative Members? In defending Back-Bench rights,

may we accept what the Minister has done as a precedent whereby, in future, if Opposition Members have questions tabled up to No. 25 which could be linked and they are not called, they, too, should have the right to ask supplementary questions?

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you examine this matter — as you undoubtedly will—will you bear in mind that sometimes when questions are linked, if there is a "wet" Minister there may be "wet" planted questions and, if vice versa, they may come from the other element? This is not just a matter of the Opposition versus the Government. A lot depends on which section of the Tory party is doing the planting. It may be in the interests of some Tory Ministers to get questions in advance from some of their friends, as opposed to some of their enemies, on the Tory Benches.

Mr. Speaker: I shall not make any comment on that.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Question No. 37, which asks about the implications of a European Commission decision for energy policy, was previously oral Question No. 4 to the Secretary of State for Energy. I accept that Ministers are entitled to transfer questions when they are clearly addressed to the wrong person, but I cannot see how the Chancellor can be responsible for making a statement about implications for energy policy. I apologise for not giving notice of my intention to raise this, but I came along expecting to ask my Question No. 4 and discovered that it had been transferred, although it is clearly about energy policy. Is there any protection that you, Mr. Speaker, can give?

Mr. Speaker: The transfer of questions is a matter for the Ministers concerned, but as VAT is a matter for the Chancellor, that is no doubt why the hon. Gentleman's question was transferred. On the general matter, it is normal for Ministers to link questions up to No. 25, but I also do my best to ensure that hon. Members with similar questions are called, as happened today. [Interruption.] I cannot call everyone.

Postal Services

Mr. John Ryman: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the possible disruption of postal services following the collapse of talks on new working methods and the proposed recruitment of part-time postmen.
I understand that a question may arise in connection with the sub judice rule. I will deal with that aspect straight away as it is relevant and I can deal with it briefly. This morning, a High Court judge granted an injunction to the Post Office banning industrial action without a ballot—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish to save the hon. Gentleman time. I do not think that the sub judice question arises, so perhaps he will go on to make his application — bearing in mind that the House has a guillotine motion to discuss.

Mr. Ryman: I entirely agree with you, Mr. Speaker. The sub judice does not apply, so I shall not put that argument.
I fully appreciate the criteria for acceptance of an application of this kind. I understand that I have to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is so urgent and important that it should take priority over other business already arranged. That is indeed the situation.
Sir Ronald Dearing, in an arrogant, high-handed and autocratic manner, has made it clear that he intends without consultation to introduce new machinery at Mount Pleasant post office today, well knowing the opposition of the trade union involved. The union has acted very reasonably and has agreed to discuss the matter, but it

strongly opposes the principle of recruiting a huge number of part-time postmen with consequent redundancies among existing staff.
Like Mr. MacGregor of the National Coal Board and other chairmen of nationalised and previously nationalised industries acting at the behest of the Prime Minister and the Government, Sir Ronald Dearing has said that he intends to take on the unions and to impose changes whether the workers like it or not. That is the provocative and partisan language used by the chairman of the Post Office. The result will be that within a few hours industrial action may take place at one of the most important post offices in this country, paralysing the postal services. I respectfully submit that that is a matter of great importance and should be discussed by the House very soon indeed as it has far-reaching consequences. As a result of the developments that I have described, there is a strong possibility that all postal services will be paralysed.
This is the first application of this kind that I have made in 10 years as a Member of Parliament and it is not made frivolously, to fly a kite or to make party political points. This is a matter of public importance and I respectfully suggest that the House should discuss it today.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Ryman) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the possible disruption of postal services following the collapse of talks on new working methods and the proposed recruitment of part-time postmen.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the only decision that I have to take is whether the matter should take precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I listened carefully to what he said, but I do not consider that the matter is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Common Market (Accession of Portugal and Spain)

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that on Thursday night there were important negotiations in Brussels over the accession of Spain and Portugal to the Common Market. If one believes what one reads in the press — I always do — those negotiations reached agreement on fishing, a subject of supreme importance, not least in the south-west of Cornwall, particularly in my constituency. I was surprised on arriving in the House to find that no arrangements had been made for a statement on the negotiations, apart from one on the summit. I believe that the Prime Minister may wish to make a statement on the latter tommorow. However—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This has to be a point of order for me.

Mr. Harris: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is how on earth I, as a Back Bencher whose constituency happens to be nearer to Spain than any other constituency, deal intelligently with the questions being put to me, not least by my fishermen who are worried stiff about this matter, when I have no reliable information on which to go? Has there been any application to make a statement to the House on the details of the negotiations and, if not, why not?

Mr. Eric Forth: rose—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is nothing to do with me whether the Government are to make a statement today, tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. I cannot answer such questions, but I shall hear what the hon. Gentlemen wish to say.

Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I point out, so that there is no mistaking the matter, that

hon. Members with constituencies in the west midlands, where there are extensive motor car interests, are as concerned as is my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) about fishing. I wish to illustrate the breadth of concern about this important matter.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that the two hon. Members who have spoken are relatively new and I know, too, that they have made a bit of bread and butter out of the Common Market in their time, but perhaps you would suggest to them that there are various ways in which they can bring further embarrassment on their Government. For example, they could have tabled a private notice Question for a Minister to answer. They could have done what my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Ryman) did a few minutes ago and made a Standing Order No. 10 application. The truth is that they want to have their cake and eat it. They do not have the guts to take on their own Government.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is extremely helpful, as he knows much about the procedures of the House.

BILL PRESENTED

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Tony Baldry presented a Bill to amend Part II of Schedule 1 of the Local Government Act 1972 to create the County of Banburyshire: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 April and to be printed. [Bill 117.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Education (Assisted Places) Regulations 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Transport Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the bill:—

Committee

1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 7th May 1985.

Report and Third Reading

2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 45 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 45 may he varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3. —(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on art allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on first allotted day

7.—(1) On the first allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
(3) If the first allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three

hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9. —(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to a bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10. — (1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to he taken on that day.

Recommittal

12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on


Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of recommittal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—

"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
"the Bill" means the Transport Bill;
"Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

It falls to me on these occasions to introduce and explain the motion under discussion. I propose to do so briefly, thereby allowing as much time as possible for those with an abiding interest in the subject to contribute to the debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will, when winding up, respond to the points made and deal with the provisions of the Bill in greater detail than it would be appropriate for me to essay.
The Bill to which this motion seeks to apply a timetable gives effect to the proposals in the White Paper "Buses" which the Government published as a Command Paper in July last year. That White Paper was the subject of an extensive consultation exercise before the legislation was introduced on 31 January. The Bill received its Second Reading on 12 February.
The Transport Bill represents an attempt to break the cycle of rising costs and falling services which have plagued this sector of the transport market for the past 30 years. During that time the bus and coach share of the market has fallen from 43 per cent. to 8 per cent. Meanwhile, fares and subsidies have risen substantially in real terms.
I think that there will be general agreement that that is not a happy situation and that there is considerable room for improvement. The Government believe that that improvement can be achieved by lifting the burden of regulation and monopoly which weighs upon the industry.
Accordingly, the Bill will abolish road service licensing outside London, liberate the taxi and hire car market and provide for the transfer of the National Bus Company's operations to the private sector.
There is clear evidence that that is a prudent approach. The Transport Act 1980 took the first step in that direction by abolishing road service licensing for long distance coach services. The result has been better services, lower fares and more passengers. In this, it is giving effect to the fundamental objective of transport policy, to allow the travelling public to exercise their choice to move about as cheaply and efficiently as possible. The Bill will give an opportunity for those benefits to be extended.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have not received a single letter in support of the Bill and yet I have received literally hundreds of letters from people opposed to it? Is he also aware that tomorrow there will be perhaps one of the

largest lobbies that Parliament will have seen in opposition to the Bill? Why does he not recognise those points instead of just reading out a ministerial brief? Perhaps he does not believe in this nonsense of a Bill that is going through Parliament at the moment.

Mr. Biffen: What the hon. Gentleman says about his postbag merely gives testimony to the well-orchestrated activities of the vested interests that are challenged by this legislation.
However, the Bill is not merely an exercise in deregulation. It recognises that bus services have a social as well as an economic role. It is worth bearing in mind that the existing system has signally failed to protect that role. Those who rely on rural services will be aware of the extent of their decline in recent years. Accordingly, the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to make grants to the operators of rural services and introduces competitive tendering to ensure the best possible value for money on subsidised routes which are uneconomic but of social importance.
In addition, many of the Bill's 114 clauses are devoted to ensuring the maintenance of high standards of safety and reliability. Thus the Transport Bill represents a comprehensive approach to easing the problems of an important sector of the transport market. It is a long and detailed piece of legislation and it is in the interests of all those involved in the industry that it should be carefully considered.
The Government are anxious to facilitate that consideration. Indeed, at the request of the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans), the then Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport, the Bill's start in Committee was slightly delayed so that the Select Committee would have time to publish its evidence on the subject. However, careful consideration does not mean interminable argument. Some balance must be struck between a fascination with detail and a desire to make progress, and that balance is not being achieved.
The Bill commenced its proceedings in Standing Committee on 21 February when two and a quarter hours were spent discussing the sittings motion. Since then the Committee has sat a further 18 times and has amassed a total of 94 hours of debate.
As always on such occasions I am filled with admiration for the stamina of Committee members, if not for the conciseness of those on the Opposition Benches. Largely due to their efforts, clause 1 was dissected for 30½ hours. After that matters improved somewhat. The next three clauses and two schedules were completed in only 14¾ hours. One can only assume that the Committee was disturbed by the reckless pace at which it had been travelling. Whatever the reason, it then came to a shuddering halt. Clause 5 was discussed for 24 hours.
I remind the House that the Bill has 114 clauses and seven schedules. After 94 hours of debate the Committee has completed its consideration of only 11 clauses and two schedules.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Too fast.

Mr. Biffen: I shall be glad to have on the record the hon. Gentleman's comment "Too fast". Posterity will be able to judge with what moderation the Government have moved.
At the current rate of progress, we would be well into 1986 before the Committee felt able to report the Bill to the House. Therefore, it is clear that without the


imposition of a timetable there would be no prospect of the Bill reaching the statute book in this Session of Parliament.
The period of uncertainty and the steady decline in the service offered to the travelling public would be needlessly prolongued. That uncertainty would inevitably mean that operators would put off investment decisions, and plans to develop new services would be delayed. Even after the legislation is passed, there will be a significant transitional period before the full benefits are realised. Clearly, therefore, it is in the interests of all concerned that sensible progress should be made.
The timetable imposed by the motion is not ungenerous. The Committee will not be required to report the Bill to the House until 7 May. If it continues to sit as at present, that will permit no fewer than 16 further sittings. Given the Committee's evident enthusiasm, that should be ample time for the Bill's remaining provisions to receive the consideration that their importance deserves. After that, two full days will be made available for Report and Third Reading, on the first of which the 10 o'clock rule will be suspended for two hours.
A much needed reform of an important sector of the transport industry is in danger of being delayed. Those seeking that delay maintain that they have the best interests of the industry and of the travelling public at heart. I do not question the sincerity of their beliefs.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his speech is remarkably similar to the one that he read during the debate on the guillotine on a previous Transport Bill in which, we were told, the Government had taken the power to do all the things about transport that the right hon. Gentleman is now referring to? What use did the Government make of the previous Bill?

Mr. Biffen: That is a debate for another occasion. If there is a similarity about debates on timetable motions, it is because they deal with a broadly similar proposition — that the Opposition are using time to frustrate the prospects of the Bill, whereas the Government believe that, by mandate, and by other requirements, they have every reason to secure its ultimate passage, while ensuring the balance of as fair a discussion as possible.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: In fixing the final day of 7 May, did the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that the House will not be sitting during the Easter recess?

Mr. Biffen: Yes, indeed.
I was referring to the sincere beliefs of Opposition Members. I have to say that they are misplaced. The system that they espouse has manifestly failed to maintain an efficient service to the large sections of the community who still rely heavily on buses and coaches to meet their transportation needs. The Bill is calculated to benefit the customer and the motion would facilitate its passage. Accordingly, I commend it to the House.

Mr. Peter Shore: As the Leader of the House revealingly put it, it fell to him to propose the timetable motion. The right hon. Gentleman followed up that comment by reading at breakneck speed a script which was obviously prepared for him by the Secretary of State for Transport and which lacked all conviction and was a mere propaganda exercise.
I could not make up my mind whether the Leader of the House's principal mood was governed primarily by innocence or boredom. I have a few things to say about the Bill, because it falls to me to reply, but I think that I will say them with more genuine feeling and conviction about the Bill than the right hon. Gentleman managed to mobilise.
These timetable motions appear to recur at all too frequent intervals. Indeed, a very disturbing pattern is now emerging. First, we are presented with highly controversial, complex and ideologically motivated legislation. Secondly, no attempt is made to enlist independent and authoritative opinion on the subject matter. Indeed, consultation and discussion prior to the presentation of the Bill is either avoided or, where that is not possible, wantonly ignored. Thirdly, no concessions are made in Committee prior to the imposition of the guillotine. Fourthly, wherever possible, powers are taken to weaken or destroy local democratic control through local authorities. Finally, most of clauses and schedules have received not even the most perfunctory attention, because they have not been reached. That is the pattern—

Mr. Eric Forth: Whose fault is that?

Mr. Shore: It is very much the fault of the Secretary of State for Transport and his colleagues.
The features that I have just described were also the unacceptable features of the Local Government Bill, which was the last subject of the guillotine on 11 February. As I shall show in a moment, the Transport Bill has the same basically ugly features. First, I do not think that even the Leader of the House or the Secretary of State for Transport will dispute the fact that the measure is ideological, controversial and complex. Its central aims and provisions are designed to achieve two things: first, to deregulate passenger transport by abolishing, at a stroke, all the legislative provisions for road service licensing that have existed since the 1930s; secondly, to privatise bus services not merely by denationalising and breaking up the National Bus Corporation but by compelling the passenger transport executives and the municipal authorities to sell off their bus fleets.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): The right hon. Gentleman obviously has not studied the Bill. First, it is the National Bus Company and not the National Bus Corporation. Secondly, local authorities are invited to make their bus operations into public limited companies, but there are no powers to compel them to sell the shares of those companies.

Mr. Shore: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that information. Is he now assuring us that, having compelled the local authorities to turn their municipal bus enterprises into public limited companies, he will not require them to privatise them at the next stage of his transport policy?

Mr. Ridley: I am delighted to respond to that point, as it concerns a matter that will be debated when—if we are ever allowed to — we reach the relevant clauses. Without the guillotine, we shall not get there. However, I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that he wants. There are no plans whatever to force privatisation on local authority owned companies.

Mr. Shore: One thing at least has become clear, and it is welcome as far as it goes.
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State informed the House:
The Bill is about competition."—[Official Report, 12 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 192.]
His fundamental error is to assume that the increase of competition in passenger transport will lead to an increase in service to the travelling public. It will not do so.
My next charge is that the Bill has no authority, derived from independent and objective opinion. Its main proposals were issued as a White Paper on 12 July 1984. As soon as the House reassembled in the autumn and the Select Committees had been reconvened, the Select Committee on Transport began its examination of the White Paper. Despite the usual Conservative majority on the Select Committee, the Secretary of State rushed ahead with the preparation of his Bill and presented it on 31 January. He arranged its Second Reading on 12 February and began the Committee Stage even before the Select Committee could report.

Mr. Forth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Shore: No. We have been over this ground several times and I remember the Second Reading debate and the tiny concession made by the Under-Secretary of State in his concluding speech.
The House will well remember the speech made on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), who was a member of the Select Committee and, of course, is a member of the Conservative party. Hon Members will also remember the reasoned amendment that he moved, which said:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Transport Bill until it has had the oportunity of studying the imminent report of the Transport Committee and what is the most fundamental upheaval in the bus industry for over 50 years."—[Official Report, 12 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 207.]
As the Select Committee observed when its report was finally published on 28 February,
Governments usually present their ideas for major changes in legislation in consultative Green Papers before setting out their proposals in a White Paper. This did not happen in the case of 'Buses'.
The Select Committee quoted the Humberside county council as pointing out:
There was no consultation on the basic ideas and only the detailed practicalities of implementation are open to comment. This is an unfortunate approach to the most fundamental change to public transport legislation for over half a century.
That is a very British understatement from the Humberside county council.

Mr. Forth: This appears to be a new departure. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that any future Labour Government will not legislate until they have gone through all the procedures that he has outlined? For example, will a future Labour Government undertake no legislation until extensive outside consultations have taken place and the appropriate Select Committee has reported?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman has not studied these matters as carefully as he should have done if he wishes to raise such points. As those who have been Members of the House rather longer than he has may recall, it was a Labour Government who introduced Green Papers in 1965 or 1966. They were very keen to extend the scope of

consultation on legislation before Governments invested their pride and prestige in White Papers — in other words, before their follies could be pointed out and they could gracefully withdraw. That is the origin of Green Papers, and they are a very good idea.

Mr. Ridley: I have been a Member of the House rather longer than the right hon. Gentleman. How many consultative documents and Green Papers did the right hon. Gentleman issue before each nationalisation measure by the Labour Government? For example, I do not remember a consultative document on the nationalisation of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries.

Mr. Shore: I do not think that anyone could deny that that Bill was debated in the House far more thoroughly than any Bills have been debated before or since.
As the hon. Member for Wellingborough reminded the House on 12 February, his reasoned amendment had the support not only of hon. Members on both sides of the House, but was supported by no fewer than 11 national organisations, which he recounted. They were the Association of District Councils, the Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers, the Bus and Coach Council, the Chartered Institute of Transport, Friends of the Earth, the National Association of Local Councils, the Ramblers Association, the Royal Town Planning Institute, Rural Voice, and Transport 2000, all operating under the aegis of Women in the Community — the National Federation of Women's Institutes.
Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends should plead guilty to the charge of peremptory and arbitrary legislation and the denial of the opportunity to make serious and informed comments not only to consumer bodies and those who operate the bus services, but even to a Select Committee.
Thirdly, no concessions were made during the Committee stage — [Interruption.] Perhaps I should correct myself. The Government accepted that the traffic commissioners' maximum age should be reduced from 70 to 65 — [Interruption] Do I have that wrong? I do not think I have. That is the only concession. The Government may have inserted a "the" or an "a", but the only substantial concession was on the age of commissioners.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: A major concession was granted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the benefit of concessionary fares for the elderly. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) may shake her head, but a major concession was granted by my right hon. Friend. He promised to bring forward on Report, a clause dealing with concessionary fares for the elderly. He also promised to bring forward a charter and guidance for the disabled. The right hon. Gentleman should know that full well.

Mr. Shore: I am aware that, owing to the ingenuity of my hon. Friends in Committee, there was some discussion about the important matter of concessionary fares. This was during discussion of the early clauses of the Bill. However, the relevant clauses dealing with concessionary fares arise later in the Bill. The Government have not yet made a statement about them—and nor could they until they are reached. I do not know how the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) can claim that major changes and concessions have been made when the relevant clauses have not been reached.

Mr. Ridley: I should hate the right hon. Gentleman to be guilty of misleading concessionary fare travellers. I wish to make it absolutely clear that I undertook to introduce either new clauses or amendments on Report to make it clear that all operators will have to take part in local authority concessionary fare schemes, subject to a special appeal procedure which, I think, is technical. The guarantee is there, and the right hon. Gentleman must not traduce what I have said.

Mr. Shore: The right hon. Gentleman is not saying that he has yet accepted any amendments. All that he has said is that during the debates in Committee—because of the ingenuity of my hon. Friends—the matter was discussed ahead of the relevant clauses. He was driven to make certain statements. I shall comment later in my speech on my worries about concessionary fares. If the right hon. Gentleman will contain himself—

Mr. Don Dixon: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Labour Members have repeatedly requested that the same concession be made in the London Regional Transport Bill. On the Second Reading of that Bill, the Secretary of State categorically refused the request of two of his hon. Friends to introduce a clause about concessionary fares. We want old-age pensioners throughout Great Britain to have the same concessions as old-age pensioners in the London area.

Mr. Shore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who helps to put the matter into its proper perspective.
Whatever minuscule amendments were accepted in Committee, they hardly add up to the basic conclusion of the Select Committee on Transport, which stated,
Most of those organisations
— it was referring to responsible local authorities, the operators and consumer organisations—
believe that the Bill's proposals … are defective or totally unworkable. We believe that the Bill will require considerable amendment if it is to prove acceptable to the wide range of the political spectrum which is at present opposed to parts of it.
My fourth challenge is that the Bill makes yet one more attack upon local democracy and upon the powers and duties of elected local councils. The National Bus Company, the enterprises run by the PTEs and those directly provided by local authorities are henceforth to be turned into public limited companies. We know that the first two are to be privatised, and we heard what the Secretary of State said earlier when he assured us that the PLCs formed by local authorities would remain in public ownership. I hope that my hon. Friends will firmly press that point in future discussions.
For more than half a century, and under successive Conservative and Labour Governments, municipal and other local authorities have been entrusted with the operation of passenger transport services. Indeed, the provision of good local bus services has been among the principal activities, and a source of justifiable pride, of local government as a whole. Much of that is now to cease. No attempt is being made even to distinguish the good from the not so good.
This immensely controversial Bill remains substantially undiscussed. Of its 114 clauses, only 11 have been reached. Admittedly clause 1, which abolishes road service licensing, contains one of the two main principles of the Bill, and that was bound to take a long period for discussion, and indeed it did.

Mr. Hayes: Thirty hours.

Mr. Shore: The principle of regulation has lasted for more than 50 years. Clause 1 provides for abolition of the system while the remainder of the Bill is basically about what provisions will be put in its place. Therefore, I am not in the least surprised that discussion of it took that amount of time. Clause 1 is the major clause of the Bill and if that had not been properly debated, the Opposition and Committee would not have done their duty.

Mr. Forth: rose—

Mr. Shore: No, I will not give way.
The privatisation proposals have not been discussed at all. I am thinking of the privatisation of NCB and of the passenger transport executives. Nor has there been any discussion of subsidies and tenders, matters of great importance. The clauses relating to travel concessions, about which the Secretary of State and I have had exchanges, remain undiscussed; they have not yet been reached, although my hon. Friends tabled amendments on the subject to earlier clauses.

Mr. Robin Corbett: My right hon. Friend referred to passenger transport executives. Is he aware that important provisions, as it were, not in the Bill, to safeguard the pension rights of thousands of staff working for the PTEs have not been discussed and that, as matters stand, although their terms and conditions of employment would pass to the new bodies, the protection of pension rights is excluded from those provisions?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Indeed, it is a major omission because it concerns thousands of people who are, and have been, employed in the industry and whose legitimate interests have not been discussed and cannot adequately be discussed under the rigorous limitations of the timetable.
Those are our principal charges against the Bill and the increasingly disturbing pattern of peremptory legislation to which I referred at the outset. We seem to be getting not only Government without consultation but Government by guillotine as well. While this reflects the predominant style of the present Government, no Minister has a poorer track record than the principal architect of the Bill, the Secretary of State for Transport. He cheerfully breaks the law and, when rebuked by Her Majesty's judges, arrogantly refuses to reconsider his conduct but relies on the Whips and the Government's majority to change the law to show that he was right in the first place.
What makes the Bill so unacceptable, and the timetable ill judged, is the extraordinary breadth and depth of opposition to it. After all, the voices of the consumers — the passengers — of bus services should be heeded. Those in rural areas, women who do not have the use of their own motor cars, and pensioners who rely heavily on concessionary fares, are strongly opposed to the measure. They rightly fear that the main effect of the Bill will be to reduce the number of unprofitable services by eliminating the present practice of cross-subsidisation and by the relentless financial squeeze on local authorities, whose ability directly to subsidise unprofitable services is bound to be drastically curtailed.
Highly relevant also are the considered comments of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. In its paper of 15 March, which other hon. Members will have received, the society said:


the 1985 Transport Bill seriously threatens the continued existence of a competitive bus manufacturing base in the United Kingdom.
It pointed out
de-regulation and sub-contracting will lead to these authorities concentrating their operations on commercial networks only and other subsidised routes will be put out to tender. This is expected to lead to a reduction in the fleet size by 25 per cent. and, therefore, demand for heavy duty buses will decline.
The number of jobs in the United Kingdom bus industry has already fallen by about 44 per cent. since 1981, reflecting the abolition of new bus grants in 1980 and the massive squeeze on local authority expenditures since that date. The total number of annual registrations of new double deck and single deck buses has fallen from 3,148 in 1980 to 1,470 in 1984. On the SMMT's forecast, the number will be down to 800 in 1986.
The future of the bus industry and of bus services as a whole is much at risk. For all those reasons, I invite the House to reject the motion.

Mr. Matthew Parris: We make no complaint that we do not see on the Opposition Benches today the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott). Though a spokesman on transport, we understand that he is away getting married.

Mr. Hayes: He is on his honeymoon.

Mr. Parris: As ever, I am out of date. In the past five weeks or so the hon. Member for Wigan will not have had much time to see his betrothed. I am glad that he was able to finalise arrangements. Those of us who remain unbetrothed have not had much time to pursue similar objectives. We have spent about 90 hours in Committee.
I listented with interest to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) about the report of the Select Committee, of which I was a member, as was the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), who I see in his place. I should remind the House that the major recommendations and conclusions of the Select Committee were argeed only by the casting vote of the Chairman.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the hon. gentleman make it clear that the Conservatives on the Select Committee had a majority and that the Chairman cast his vote, in the custom of all Chairmen of such Committees, for this status quo? Will he please not try to imply that by some means, the Chairman, who is a most respected man, misused his position?

Mr. Parris: I made no such imputation. The Chairman is a man of enormous honour and all members of the Committee respect him greatly. By casting his vote in favour of the status quo, he did no more than the Chairman of any Select Committee would have been expected to do. I was simply pointing out that four members of the Select Committee were for the conclusions, that four members were against and that the whole thing was decided, as is customary in such circumstances, by the casting vote of the Chairman.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Would it not be fairer to say that the hon. Gentleman and perhaps one other of his Conservative colleagues on the Select Committee

seemed to support most of the provisions of the measure, whereas a number of his Conservative colleagues were opposed to many parts of the Bill? The way in which they voted appears on the record.

Mr. Parris: I agree that some members of the Select Committee had reservations about many parts of the Bill. However, when it came to expressing our overall view, as expressed in the summary and recommendations of the Select Committee's report, the voting was four in favour and four against, so the report was passed on the casting vote of the Chairman.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the hon. Gentleman also make it clear that there were 44 voting and that he is talking about three?

Mr. Parris: Yes, about three votes on the summary and recommendations, which represented the most important part of the report.
My Conservative colleagues on the Select Committee, being honourable people, voted as they believed. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), being the parliamentary adviser to the National Bus Company, scrupulously avoided voting on matters affecting the NBC. Nevertheless, it is true to say that many Committee members had interests in relation to the matters that the Select Committee was studying.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan), was the chairman of the west midlands passenger transport authority. Not unsurprisingly, he was disinclined to believe that things could be done better than they were being done by that transport authority.

Mr. Corbett: Perhaps he was right.

Mr. Parris: I am inclined to believe that the west midlands passenger transport authority, even under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley, is capable of improvement. For all the reasons that I have given, I do not believe that the report and recommendations of the Select Committee can be taken in too simplistic a way.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said that most of the interests consulted had been opposed to the Bill. That is true. I have been reading the Official Report of debates on all stages of the Transport Act 1952. The Minister of Transport, the then Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd, led for the Government in Committee. That measure deregulated road haulage and denationalised the parts of the industry that were in public hands. There was enormous opposition from every shade of opinion. Safety organisations said that the Bill would make lorries more dangerous as it would enable operators to cut corners. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce was against the move, as was the The Times, The Guardian and many of the motoring organisations. The Labour party was passionately against the Bill. The stage was reached when a guillotine debate took place. The Bill, which became the subject of a timetable motion, eventually was enacted. As far as I am aware, no one has looked back since then. Indeed, no one has suggested that we should reregulate the road haulage industry or renationalise lorry operations.

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that, with a measure such as this, the vested interest groups, which are inevitably Conservative, are ready to defend the status quo


and that it has been left to a Conservative Government and Conservative Members to represent the greatest interest of all—the travelling public?

Mr. Parris: My hon. Friend is right.
We have heard a great deal of opposition to the Bill, and it has come from two main groups. First, there are the expert bodies, such as the county councils, the district councils and the National Bus Company. Such organisations generally have a vested interest, one way or the other, in the status quo. That is not wrong. It is every group's responsibility to protect the interests of its members, and we are not surprised or disappointed that they have sought to do so on this occasion. Those vested interests should be taken into account.
The second group which has expressed opposition is formed by organisations representing pensioners, the disabled, consumers and women's organisations. Those groups have been frightened by the vested interests into believing that their members will suffer from the measures contained in the Bill. We are beginning to win the argument in Committee and to persuade those groups that they need not be frightened, and certainly not in the way that the vested interests have suggested they should be.
In many ways, the motion comes as more of a relief to Opposition than to Conservative Members. The speeches of Opposition Members have become something of a nightmare. The motion will rescue them from the problem of opposing a Bill to which they are deeply opposed while failing to use the debates in Committee to try to improve it so that the Bill will be more effective when enacted, given that it will reach the statute book in due course. Opposition Members resort to the making of Second Reading speeches on every clause and amendment. We must have had at least seven Second Reading debates on the principles enshrined in the Bill.
I would not begrudge the 90 hours that we have spent in Committee on the first 13 clauses or so if the result had been the minute scrutiny of every part of the machinery that is to be put in place with a view to making it work more effectively. Unfortunately, we have not been considering the working of the proposed legislation in any detail. Instead, we have been hearing repeated Second Reading debates. The sooner that Opposition Members stop rehearsing Second Reading debates and work according to a sensible and generous timetable, which the motion sets out, the better it will be for the Bill and for the future of public transport generally.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: I do not wish to follow the tracks of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris), who was a member of the Select Committee on Transport. It is pleasing that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), who is a member of the Standing Committee, was also a member of the Select Committee.
I have said more than once that I am not in favour of the creation of Select Committees. Before they were established, the attendance in the Chamber during timetable motion debates was always much greater than it is today. This afternoon we are hearing, in the main, only those who are members of the Standing Committee. The Select Committees have done great damage in reducing attendances in the House. However, they exist and it is remiss of the Government if they take no notice of their reports. I am a member of a Select Committee and I am

aware of the way in which Members toil prior to and during their meetings. In this instance the Government introduced the Bill before the Select Committee on Transport had produced its report.
It was clear that the Leader of the House was embarrassed in moving the motion. That was plain for us all to see. The right hon. Gentleman kept his head down and read a prepared speech. I suppose that the speech would be about the same whatever Bill was being guillotined. Only the figures would be slightly different.
I am not shouting foul at the introduction of this guillotine motion. I am probably unique in having argued on behalf of my party that the Government should have a guillotine motion. I recognise that guillotine motions have a part to play in our affairs. I volunteered to be a member of the Standing Committee and no man can display greater love for his party than one who gives up a great deal of his life outside this place to sit as a member of a Committee considering a Transport Bill. I participated in the 1968 Transport Bill and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West should read the three volumes that contain the reports of our debates in that Committee. If he does so, he will learn that Transport Bills are usually extremely controversial whether they are introduced by Labour or Conservative Governments. The Bill currently in Committee contains 114 clauses. It is complex and controversial but, above all, the proposals that it sets out are brand new. We have heard about leaps in the dark and acts of faith. The Bill should have been the first one to be considered in the new Session. It should not have been introduced at such a late stage.
Opposition Members of the Committee have been chided for taking so long on the sittings motion and clause 1 which, in effect, is the Bill. If we had not done so, we would not have been doing our job properly. We had a duty to express our point of view on clause 1. Clause 1 having been agreed to stand part of the Bill, it was then the Opposition's job to consider the nuts and bolts of the proposed machinery with a view to trying to make them rather better. Some clauses are, of course, more important than others. Clause 5, for example, is central to the Bill.
Of course, the Bill is not about buses, better bus services or lower fares. It reflects the Secretary of State's dogma and the grand master plan that emerged from his pen some time ago. This is clear as we consider the Bill and listen to ministerial replies. The Government said when we first met in Committee that they had an open mind and that if the Opposition advanced good arguments their amendments would be accepted. Instead, there has been confusion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) was not quite correct when he suggested that an amendment was accepted that would reduce the retiring age of commissioners from 70 years to 65. The issue was rather more complex than that. In fact, the Government rejected that amendment. We are leaving alone those commissioners who are already in place, but, in future, we might call for them to retire at 65. I think that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight was more surprised than the rest of the Committee when one of his amendments was accepted. The Government's actions left him speechless.
There was great confusion because the Bill was not properly thought through. Differing and confusing responses were given to each clause and amendment. There was a little pantomime when I asked about the traffic commissioner for Nottinghamshire, one hon. Member


saying that he would be in Peterborough and the Secretary of State saying that he would be in Nottingham. Hon. Members conducted a tête-à-tête and it was discovered — lo and behold — that the Secretary of State was wrong. The commissioner will be in Peterborough, rather than in Nottingham.
At the last Committee sitting the Opposition moved an important amendment concerning local government authority. We were told that we should not worry about the amendment, because local councils would make the regulations dealing with taxi services. We accepted that point. Shortly afterwards, during consideration of the motion that the clause stand part of the Bill, there was a sudden change of mind. We discovered that local authorities would be able to put forward only those regulations that the Secretary of State agreed. If the Secretary of State disagreed, he would write to the authorities to put them wise.
Many assumptions have been made. It is said that if only the profitable areas and routes are taken over by bus services subsidies might need to come from local authorities, as though one can assume that the local authorities will pick up the bits and pieces and keep the bus services going. I am not sure that the local authorities will take on that responsiblity or that they will have the necessary finance to do so, once the the Government have done with them.
I object to the motion because the Bill is lengthy, complex and has not been completely thought through. The Bill needs a good going over so that we can sort out these aspects. I believe that Bills of this nature should be considered early in the Session. This Bill has never had a chance; the Committee has never had a chance. It was obvious from the word go that the Bill was not being considered properly. Hon. Members who have sat on Committees know that there is a set way of conducting the business. We have often discussed the fact that there was something rather odd about this Committee. The Bill went into Committee with hon. Members knowing full well that there was not a cat in hell's chance that it would be scrutinised properly for the correct period.

Mr. David Maclean: Leaving aside the right hon. Gentleman's point that there was something rather odd about the Committee, does he accept that it was odd — I have heard Opposition Members saying this in the Corridor—that Conservative Members participated in this Committee more than had been the practice in the past with similar Committees?

Mr. Concannon: That is just one aspect that I am trying to point out. You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from your great experience as Committee Chairman, that the Opposition are supposed to make the running in Committee. They are told to make the running and are allowed to do so. The only time that Conservative Members participated in Committee discussions while they were in opposition was when the guillotine motion had been passed. It did not matter what happened then. They could take their turn and turn about. The Leader of the House would not have been keen to move this motion if it had been pointed out that 45 of the 90 hours were taken by Government Ministers. It is standard procedure in such Committees that the Opposition should make the running.
It is well known that the Bill was introduced late in the Session, that it never stood a chance and that it would be guillotined sooner rather than later. The Bill was considered for two sittings and then we were on to the night shift, simply to get the hours in so that the Leader of the House could legitimately move a timetable motion. The Leader of the House bears some responsibility for this. He should have had words with the people in the right place and, in February or March, when the Bill was not in Committee, he should have said, "It is too late to give the Bill a fair run. Let us leave it until the following Session." In that case, the Bill could have been scrutinised properly. It certainly will not be given the scrutiny it deserves.
We have been told that only 11 clauses have been considered, but clause 1 was, in effect, about the Bill and two other clauses were of great importance. Two days are left for Report and Third Reading. Not only the Opposition but many activists in the Conservative party oppose various parts of the Bill. I am sure that the other place will go over the Bill better than this House has been allowed to do.
Tomorrow, a substantial lobby will meet hon. Members. It might comprise vested interests, but what the heck is wrong with that? If lobbies do not look out for their own interests, we should do so or we would be failing in our duty. I was telephoned at the weekend and asked whether I would receive a petition from Nottingham city. It is not often that Nottingham looks for my help, but I shall receive that petition.
Many people in industry and trade are worried about what will happen to their pensions and pension schemes, and the Minister should make a point of making a statement on this matter today.
If the Government had conducted their business properly and ensured that consideration started early in the Session, we need not have had the guillotine motion. We could have given the Bill the scrutiny that it deserves.

Mr. Eric Forth: I wish principally to express my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for introducing a timetable motion to put this matter on an appropriate and correct footing. I work on the assumption—as a new Member I say this only tentatively—that the basis of legislation is that we debate the principle of a measure on Second Reading and presume that when we have done that the principle is established, and that the job of the Standing Committee is to scrutinise the legislation clause by clause and to improve it. When I arrived in Committee I still held that view, but I have learnt since then.
By my calculations, the Committee has sat for about 96 hours. That is long enough for us to have had two births and one marriage. I hope that the timetable motion will allow us to avoid the remainder of the trilogy before we go much further. I should like to congratulate both my hon. Friends who have become fathers and the Opposition Member who got married on Saturday. We wish them all extremely well. That gives some idea of the length of the proceedings that we have had to endure.
I want to give the House a few statistics that I have developed while considering the Committee's proceedings to put into context some of the things that have been said, in particular, by the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore),


who refused to allow interventions. It took one third of the Committee's deliberations to get beyond clause 1. We were told that that was because clause 1 deals with the principle of the Bill. I thought, as I have said, that the Bill's principle was dealt with on Second Reading. The House said what it wanted to say then and passed the Bill to Committee on the assumption that the principle had been established. Given that, I should have thought that we could have saved ourselves a great deal of time by not repeating the exercise on clause 1, which dealt with the principles of regulation and deregulation. About 30 hours were spent debating clause 1 and the principles all over again.
The Committee reached schedule 2 about halfway through its deliberations. By the time the Committee had completed the 96 hours—it seemed a great deal longer—it had covered only 12 clauses—in other words, about 10 per cent. of the clauses. For that reason the timetable measure has been brought before us.
Matters get worse, because on examining the details some interesting facts emerge. If we run a slide rule over the Committee's proceedings, we find that the Opposition consist of about 40 per cent. of the Committee's membership, but they have occupied 80 per cent. of the Committee's speaking time. That is why when the shadow Leader of the House complained about the time we had taken to get to the present stage, I interrupted him — from, I confess, a sedentary position because he would not accept any interventions—to ask whose fault that was.
The blame for the Committee having taken an excessive amount of time to go the short distance that it has lies at the Opposition's door.

Dr. John Marek: rose—

Mr. Forth: Opposition Members have spent about 80 per cent. of the Committee's time despite the fact that they represent only 40 per cent. of the membership. I shall gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman who claimed, I suspect with some pride, to have occupied most of that 80 per cent.

Dr. Marek: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. We made short and succinct speeches. Is not the explanation for the fact that we took up 80 per cent. of the time that we have read the Bill and have the country's interests at heart, whereas every time that I see the hon. Gentleman in Committee he seems to be licking envelopes?

Mr. Forth: The problem is that the Committee is charged with the detail of the Bill. The difficulty is that many Conservative Members have been waiting anxiously to reach some of the provisions in which they have a great and abiding interest. We have been unable to reach that business because some of the speeches in the early stages of the Committee were two or three hours long. That cannot be interpreted as a proper and detailed scrutiny of the Bill's provisions. It can be interpreted only as the classical but wrongheaded approach taken by the Opposition of filibustering and time wasting. That is why the Government are forced to propose a timetable motion. If we agreed with the Opposition's approach, as my right hon. Friend said, we would prevent the measure from getting to the statute book, which is the Opposition's objective. The measure might also be made worse.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: When the hon. Gentleman measured the column inches of

speeches, did he take into account the inordinate number of interventions by the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen)? Furthermore, has the hon. Gentleman taken into account the fact that, when the Government Chief Whip determined the Tory composition of the Committee, he was extremely astute, because although there were an enormous number of constituents of Tory Members and Tory dissidents who were up in arms about the Bill, he decided to have in Committee nothing more than lobby fodder which would keep quiet and say nothing?

Mr. Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that it was the Government Chief Whip who determined who was on the Committee. It is the Committee of Selection that chooses the members of the Committee. It is completely non-partisan.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he has pointed out the mischievous nature of what was said. It gives me the opportunity to reply to something that the hon. Member of Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said about the composition of the Committee. If you were to look at the composition of the Committee, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would find that the geographical representation from the Conservative Benches is comprehensive. We have Members from up and down the country — from Scotland, the North, urban areas, the midlands and the south-west. All the travelling public is therefore represented. Unfortunately, that cannot be said of Opposition Members. In a sense, I have to forgive them, because that reflects the completely unrepresentative nature of the Labour party today. It has been able to muster Members from what can only be described by the more impolite amongst us as the Celtic fringes, although I would not be so rude. Vast areas of the United Kingdom are unrepresented by Opposition Members. From that point of view, the selection is odd.
Most Conservative members of the Committee were volunteers. I speak not only for myself but for many others. Conservative Members were queueing at the door of the room of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection asking for the honour to serve on the Committee, and we have been delighted to do so. We have occasionally intervened in the speeches of Opposition Members. We went to the Committee with the presumption that the principle of the Bill was supported and that we need not therefore speak excessively or at length on every clause but could stand quietly behind the Minister when he explained the clauses. If we heard nonsense spoken by the Opposition, we felt it our duty to intervene to correct or question further the verbose nonsense that we were hearing.

Mr. Concannon: If Conservative Members were all volunteers keenly and actively involved in transport matters, why did we so often have to wait because they could not keep a quorum?

Mr. Forth: I had hoped that that sort of mischievous nonsense would not be brought to the House today, because my hon. Friends and I know full well that the proceedings of the Committee have never been interrupted for the lack of a quorum — [Interruption.] — unless Opposition Members, having noticed hon. Members going out for calls of nature or other reasons, took the opportunity to disrupt the proceedings by asking whether


there was a quorum. In yet another way, Opposition Members were obstructive and negative in prolonging and disrupting the proceedings of the Committee.
For all those reasons, I am relieved that the Leader of the House has moved a timetable motion which will have the objective of bringing to as end the negative and destructive tactics which have been pursued by Opposition Members from the outset. It will enable us to proceed with a proper scrutiny of the Bill, with participation from all hon. Members, so that it may come out of Committee in better shape than it went in. It is to the motion that we look for that opportunity, for regrettably the Opposition have not provided it up to now.

0Mr. Stephen Ross: April 1 is an appropriate date on which to discuss the Transport Bill, as the debate so far has borne out. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) referred to the two births and the marriage which have taken place since the Committee started. That is one example of an immaculate conception, for the proceedings so far have covered only five weeks since 21 February.
I have some respect for the Leader of the House and I am sorry that he is not present in the Chamber. I feel that he cannot be happy about what he is doing with the Transport Bill and the several other Bills that have been guillotined by the Government. It is a daft way to legislate. The sooner we have a timetable for Bills as they go into Committee, the better. That has been said frequently from the Liberal Benches, but no progress has been made in that direction.
So far the Government have made only one and a half concessions and two commitments in Committee. One of them was made to me in regard to the fees charged to people wishing to see the decisions of traffic commissioners. I am glad that the Minister allowed me that concession. In addition, there have been two statements of intent that we have yet to see proven. Apart from that, the Government have conceded nothing.
Clause 1 is the crucial clause. Although some complaint may be made about the time taken to debate it, the total abolition of road service licensing is a big step to take. Many of us feel that it is too big a step and that there should be some regulation of licensing. Ultimately, I think that it will be necessary to return to a system of regulation. I do not think that there is any advantage to be gained by following the example of Chile in that respect.
Clause 5 relates to the registration of local services, and the Government have listened to what we said about that. We spoke on advice given to us by the Government's own supporters in the Association of County Councils and by the chairman of the very committee that was involved in the Hereford experiment. Everything that I have heard in the debate on clause 5 convinces me that registration should remain with the transport authorities and not be passed to the traffic commissioners. I hope that some common sense will prevail in Government circles and that our amendments on this position will be restored.

Mr. Parris: If the county councils had shown a more positive attitude towards the Bill in general and many of them had not shown themselves to be totally hostile to

everything that the Bill seeks to achieve, does the hon. Gentleman think that they might have stood a better chance of being selected as the registration authorities?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is usually right with his facts, but on this occasion I think that he is wrong. I think that he is quoting the Association of District Councils, which has shown opposition. The ACC made statements in support of the Bill.

Mr. Parris: I do not mean the Association of County Councils. I refer to the many individual county councils which are spending millions of pounds frightening pensioners in their areas in regard to the loss of bus facilities.

Mr. Ross: We have not done that in my constituency. We have just been accused of putting the rates up by 31 per cent. as opposed to the average of Conservative county councils. They happen to be Labour, not Liberal, county councils. On the other hand, I believe that many people living in rural areas have reason for concern. While I agree that it is important to paint the true picture, the fact is that the ACC has supported the Bill. I think that it was far too craven towards the Government and it has not obtained what it would like to have obtained. It was right to ask for the registration role, but it came in far too late with its request. The ACC went on bended knee to the Government. I am delighted that county councils, which do not follow the attitude of the ACC, have formed their own group. I have been a delegate to meetings of the ACC, but I might just as well have been a representative of the CBI, judging by some of its members' comments.
Clauses 9 to 14 deal with taxis and hire cars. The Committee was dealing with them at its last sitting. I think that Conservative Members must accept that what we have been told about taxis is nonsense. I do not believe that the Government can have thought through the clauses properly. I saw a delegation of taxi drivers in my constituency on Saturday morning. They are frightened to death at the prospect of what is to happen to them. We have not had sensible answers to the points that we have put to the Government, and we have been right to pursue them. It is wrong that the Bill should be swept ahead and go into the other place with those clauses remaining as they are. I do not believe that the Government have thought seriously about the effect of those clauses on taxi services.
It is not true, as has been said in the debate, that there have not been innovations following the 1980 and 1981 Acts. There have been experiments and competition throughout the country, not simply in the trial areas, bringing in mini-buses, and so on. Those experiments should have been allowed to continue.
We shall now have very limited time in which to discuss community bus services and the important question of tendering. Does the Secretary of State think that there will be sufficient money for the county councils to be able to subsidise the various groups of services? Some 33 routes in all have been subsidised by Hereford and Worcester. Does he think that an extra £20 million will be enough to cover all the routes? We want to discuss that question and to have some assurances that he will go back to the Treasury and get the necessary money to give the system a chance to work.
We have not discussed safety regulations, suspension of licences, the privatisation of the National Bus Company, under clause 45, and the important question of


pensions, on which I have received representations. We have not discussed fuel duty rebates or bus substitution for withdrawn rail services. I should like to discuss those matters for a considerable time, together with the role of the Development Commission in regard to rural grants. Why not give the grants directly to the county councils? They are the bodies which will have to make the subsidies. Why have another body operating in that area? It does not make much sense. I am a great supporter of the Development Commission — it was an idea that Lloyd-George introduced — but I do not understand why it should be involved in bus grants.
The Bill does not reflect the majority view of the Select Committee on Transport, whatever the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) may say. The Select Committee's report is based on the evidence that we took and what we saw for ourselves when we went to Hereford. The majority of the Committee were opposed to total deregulation. We felt that registration and co-ordination should be a matter for the transport authorities—largely the shire counties. We suggested that there should be a much wider inquiry before delicensing taxi services.
One has become used to the speeches of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire and others for whom planning is now a dirty word. For them, anything to do with local government seems to be totally unacceptable.
The present system of legislating is appalling and it must be changed. Unfortunately, we have to say the same thing every time complicated Bills are guillotined in this House. I am sorry that the Leader of the House — for whom, as I said earlier, I have much regard — is not present. Perhaps he is absent because of his disgust at what we are having to do. Perhaps at long last the public will appreciate exactly how we go about legislating in this place. It is a disgraceful system. Perhaps the public will at last take the necessary action to put an end to it and sweep the perpetrators aside.

Mr. David Maclean: I welcome the motion moved by the Leader of the House. Like the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), I feel that the way that we have been dealing with the Bill is appalling, but the responsibility for the appalling behaviour lies at the door of the Opposition. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) said, we have had 96 hours of debate in Committee, of which 80 per cent. has been taken up by Opposition Members, half of it on clause 1. We heard the same old arguments that we heard on Second Reading.
I add my congratulations to the hon. Member who has been married since the Committee began its deliberations, and to my two hon. Friends whose spouses gave birth. Although those colleagues have been productive, I doubt whether, in view of the long hours that we have been sitting, there will have been many conceptions since the Bill started in Committee.
I learned a good deal as a relatively new member of a Standing Committee. When the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Malek) intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, he said that the Opposition talked at great length because hon. Members were concerned with the detail of the Bill. That is absolutely true. I would not dream of casting any aspersions on that.
I only regret that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) is not here. I believe that he has suffered a back injury, and I commiserate with him. I regret that he is not here to enliven our proceedings. Perhaps he could have explained to us why, in the two and a half hours we spent discussing the sittings motion, that self-same Opposition, who are terribly concerned about the detailed workings of the Bill, talked for ages and ages about how one should gather mistletoe in Wales. I am just a country lad, and I learned a lot about how to gather mistletoe in Wales.
The same hon. Member and others in Committee were obsessed with employment—it is quite right that with 3 million unemployed we should be obsessed with employment. However, the Opposition were not obsessed with normal employment and unemployment. The hon. Member for Rhondda accused Conservative Members of being barristers, solicitors, accountants, second-hand car dealers and other tax crooks. Such comments are made all the time. The last time the hon. Gentleman said it to me, I confess that, not being one of those involved, I did not have a clue as to what he was talking about. That betrays the obsession of Opposition Members with the professions of Conservative Members rather than with the detailed workings of the Bill.
You will be pleased to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we did not spend long on this. There was a superb intervention by an Opposition Member who accused one of my hon. Friends of being nothing more than a ladies' underwear salesman. We did not spend too long discussing the merits of whether it was high-class ladies' underwear, and quickly moved on. Perhaps that was the problem when one of the Opposition Members was reading from briefs.
It is possibly some time since you served on a Standing Committee, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but things probably have not changed since your day. The Opposition began in their customary style by doing all the talking and making all the gibes at Conservative Members, calling them mere dummies and Lobby fodder, wheeled into Committee just to sit behind the Minister, say the occasional "Hear, hear" and then vote, and not say anything else. Then things began to go wrong for the Opposition. Conservative Members began to do the unthinkable. When we heard again and again the same old Second Reading argument from Opposition Members and the same old arguments rehearsed ad nauseam, we began to challenge some of the rubbish that we were hearing from the Opposition. Then things went from bad to worse for them. We began to table amendments. Not only did we table amendments but we began to talk to them.
Eventually, horror of horrors, we actually forced a Division. The Opposition were most annoyed about that, and in that Division, what did we find? Some Conservative Members were opposed to the amendment and others voted for it. We had dissension in the ranks. Initially, the Opposition ridiculed us for daring to have dissension in the ranks because they thought that we were all whipped in, in a tight little mass. It began to dawn on them that it was not politically sensible to accuse us of being free spirits and having individual minds, in tabling amendments and forcing them on Ministers. Then it emerged what the real grouse was. Just as the Opposition like to think that they have the exclusive use of clichés such as "compassion over the unemployed", they believe that they have an exclusive right to the new cliché in Committee, which is, "to fashion


a better Bill in Committee". When we in the Conservative party took up the invitation and began to fashion a better Bill in Committee, the Opposition did not like it.

Mr. Bob Clay: The hon. Gentleman referred to amendments actually being tabled by Conservative Members. Other than one abstention by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) and one by the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), did any Conservative Member manage to vote for his amendment?

Mr. Maclean: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has picked the wrong person to ask. The answer is, "Myself." I tabled an amendment on the age of traffic commissioners — [Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh but, horror of horrors, it was the evil Tories who reduced the retirement age of traffic commissioners from 70 to 65. We did it, horror of horrors, so it is to be rubbished.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Disgraceful.

Mr. Maclean: It is not only disgraceful; it is outrageous and shocking.
If other Conservative Members tabled amendments and did not support them because the Minister agreed that he would accept the principle and bring forward detailed amendments on Report, it is right for them to withdraw their amendments and not vote on them. If other Conservative Members did not vote on their amendments, it is up to them to justify that. If any of them are in the Chamber, they can explain to Opposition Members. Because Opposition Members have failed to get any of their nonsensical wrecking amendments accepted, which were not designed to fashion a better Bill, but were deliberately designed to frustrate the intention of the Bill, which was given a massive majority on Second Reading, they should not complain because my amendment was accepted.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am very impressed by the size of the hon. Gentleman's lungs, because he never seems to take breath. How many of his hon. Friends voted against amendments that they themselves tabled? Which of his hon. Friends who was absent from the vote and therefore did not vote against his own amendment then went on regional television and said that he had got the most fantastic concession out of Ministers?

Mr. Maclean: I have no idea who those colleagues are. They can answer for themselves. All that I know is that on my amendment three or four of my hon. Friends did not vote for it or were opposed to it. I accept that. The fact that cannot be denied is that a Conservative Member tabled an amendment to the Bill; we forced the Minister's arm and got a majority, and the amendment was accepted. Opposition Members did not like that particular fact because it destroyed the illusion and shattered the myth. As the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), whom I respect greatly, said earlier, the Committee was an odd lot from the start. I do not readily accept that terminology, but if "an odd lot" means that we spoke up and said to the Minister, "We shall fashion a better Bill in Committee on this side as well," and did not accept some of the normal conventions in a Standing Committee

that on the Government side one keeps one's mouth shut to get the Bill through and lets the Opposition do all the running—

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Oh.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman says "Oh", but we heard that in the Corridor from his hon. Friends, who were complaining that "this lot" did not keep their mouths shut and were breaking all the normal conventions for Conservative Members in Committee. To use the phrase that will soon become as popular as the word "infrastructure" as seen in the Chamber in 1985, "We were only attempting to fashion a better Bill in Committee."
There were some more interruptions from Opposition Members. For example, some sexist arguments crept in occasionally. Almost every time an hon. Member made a remark such as, "He"—the traffic commissioner—"may wish to intervene", the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) popped up and said, "Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the traffic commissioner may be a woman? How dare the hon. Gentleman refer to the traffic commissioner as 'he'." We took up a few seconds of the Committee's time apologising that when we said "he" we meant "she" as well. When I trained in law, I was told that when the term "he" is used the male will always be held to embrace the female. We should all adopt that approach.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire has already said that we had difficulty in maintaining a quorum. There was no difficulty. No time was lost on the Bill because not sufficient Government Members were there. The only time lost—

Mr. Dixon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is deliberately misleading the House if he says that no time was lost—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will rephrase what he said. He must not use unparliamentary language.

Mr. Dixon: The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has just said that the Committee was never delayed because there was no quorum because of a lack of hon. Members on the Government side. That is untrue. The record shows that on eight occasions the sitting had to be suspended because the Government could not keep 50 per cent. of their hon. Members in the Committee on this important Bill.

Mr. Maclean: If I have said something that the record proves to be untrue, I unreservedly withdraw it. I hope that I shall always do so while I am a Member of this House.
I attended every sitting of the Standing Committee bar one, and I cannot recall any occasion on which delay was caused because an insufficient number of Conservative Members were present. However, if the record proves otherwise, I shall unreservedly withdraw what I have said.

Mr. Forth: Do not Opposition Members also have a duty, as members of the Committee, to contribute to the deliberations of the Committee? If a quorum was ever momentarily lacking because hon. Members had had to leave for a call of nature or some other reason, is not the responsibilitiy shared by all the members of the Committee?

Mr. Maclean: I could not count on the fingers on both hands the numerous occasions when a little game started.


If 14 hon. Members were present on the Conservative side, and one of them left to answer the call of nature or because he had been given an urgent message, signs would be made to Opposition Members to withdraw and they would all begin to leave through the back door. Then their Whip—or the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich—would ask the Chairman whether there was a quorum. The Chairman would then have to say, "Order. I am the Chairman of this Committee. I can count whether there is a quorum. I will decide whether we are inquorate."

Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend talks about the little game that was played. He may remember the grin that spread, like that of the Cheshire cat, across the face of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon). Perhaps it was the hon. Member for Jarrow who was orchestrating the little game. Perhaps he was telling his hon. Friends to disappear.

Mr. Maclean: I know that the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) would like to tell many of his hon. Friends to disappear. However, he has not been entirely successful in that regard.
We all understand the charade that takes place on Standing Committee. If, momentarily, the Government side do not constitute a quorum, the Opposition withdraw, in the hope that the whole sitting will degenerate into a shambles.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire has said, both sides of the Committee have a responsibility to maintain the quorum. If the Opposition waste time by withdrawing Members every few minutes in the hope that the quorum will be lost, they are not showing that concern for the detail of the Bill that the hon. Member for Wrexham said that the Opposition wished to display.
The Opposition's arguments — apart from the usual rehashes of Second Reading speeches — were characterised by sheer terror that local politicians, especially local Labour party politicians, would lose control over transport. Labour Members never said that openly. One would not have expected them to. However, there was a series of contradictory assertions. At one moment—or, to be more accurate, for 15 hours—they would say that there would be no buses at all. For the next 15 hours, we would hear that if this awful Bill were passed there would be so many buses that the environment would be damaged. However, we know from my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) whether damage has been done in Hereford, whether chaos reigns there and whether pollution and destruction of the environment has resulted from the introduction of nine extra buses in his city.
The Opposition would then spend another few hours telling us about the greedy capitalists and privateers. They would turn from nautical terminology — pirates and privateers — to the terminology of the wild west. They would tell us how the cowboys would be fighting to grab as many passengers as possible, so as to maximise their profits; but the next few hours would be spent in a tirade about how the capitalists would publish no timetables, set up no bus stops, and grant no concessionary fares. The drivers would drive dangerously, behave recklessly and in general behave in a manner calculated to scare away as many passengers as they could.
That is the sort of nonsense that the Standing Committee had to put up with, and that is one good reason why we need a timetable motion.

Mr. Wareing: I hope that the hon. Gentleman intends to tell the House about the headline in the newspaper of a village in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Transport. The village was up in arms about what the Secretary of State had in store for his own constituents in terms of the, decimation of the bus service.

Mr. Maclean: I hope that my right hon. Friend will deal with that point in his reply. I do not have the pleasure of reading the newspapers for my right hon. Friend's constituency, which is 250 miles away from my own, but on Second Reading I quoted from views expressed in a newspaper in my own constituency, which realised that the Bill was a good one and could work if not sabotaged by Labour councils. However, I do not intend to rehash my Second Reading speech.
The Committee had to listen to a litany of the disasters that the Opposition believe will follow deregulation. To hear the Opposition one would have imagined that the present bus policy was a raging success. We all know, however, that that policy has failed and needs to be radically changed before there are no buses left for my constituents. The Bill is long overdue. We need the Bill on the statute book soon, not only to give private operators a chance to improve services, but to prevent Labour councillors from inflicting more damage on bus services.
Cumbria has a Labour council with a small majority, which knows full well that it will lose the local elections in May. It is therefore seeking drastic political action, with no regard for the consequences or the damage that may be done to the public. The council had consistently—and, in its mind, for valid reasons — increased the bus subsidy, but one year before the buses were to be privatised and one year before private operators were to be allowed in the council deliberately cut the subsidy in half and agreed drastic route cuts with the NBC. The council then had the effrontery to blame the Government. According to a press release sent to me last week,
The County Council regrets that these service reductions and withdrawals have been made necessary following reductions in the Government money available for Council services.
In truth, Cumbria has fared better than many Conservative-controlled councils in the allocation of grants. In 1981–82, it received £88 million. For 1984–85, it can receive £94 million. The council has also acquired extra resources from continually increasing the rates. There is no doubt that it has adequate resources to continue the present funding until the Bill becomes law.
By the same post I also received a press release from the NBC. It blamed the cuts in services on me, for voting for a Bill that will not take effect until next year. En addition, however, it inadvertently revealed the true situation. The Cumberland Motor Services press release states:
money from central government towards bus revenue support has been thrown into the general pot of rate support grant. So bus services now have to compete for priority with all the other local government services.
That is the true state of affairs. It is not that, as the council's press release claims, the council does not have the money. As the NBC press release points out, the Socialists on the county council do not give buses a high enough priority in comparison with their other profligate spending desires.
For political reasons, the Socialists on the council dislike deregulation. For political reasons, they hate privatisation. They know that the Bill will become law


later in the year, and that the public will enjoy the benefits of deregulation next year. When that happens, the council's mismanagement and the inefficiencies of the NBC will be exposed. The electorate will not think well of a Labour party that has conned it and connived at the demise of bus services. The Socialists had to do something desperate. From their own political standpoint, what could be better than to wreck rural services just a month before the elections, and attempt to blame that situation on the Government for bringing in a Bill that will not take effect until next year, or on me for supporting it? That is rank hypocrisy, but it is so transparent that it will fool no one.
The Bill is required urgently. We must get it through its Committee stage as soon as possible. Cumbria county council has committed in this instance an act of commercial sabotage out of political malice. My constituents need bus services, we need private operators, and we need them now.

Mr. Don Dixon: I shall not take up the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). We have heard the same silly arguments from him many times in Committee.
At the outset of my remarks I should like to return to my earlier point of order and put the record straight. During the Committee's 18th sitting on Thursday 28 March, the Chairman, who is one of the senior members of the Chairmen's Panel, had to suspend the sitting. He had pointed out on numerous occasions that Conservative Members were interrupting the proceedings to raise bogus points of order. On this specific occasion he said:
This is no point of order. The conduct of the hon. Member for South Hams is intolerable. I suspend the sitting till 11.44 am." — [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 March 1985; c. 966.]
That arose out of the silly interventions that Tory Members had been making.
On resuming the sitting, the Chairman's attention was called to the fact that 15 hon. Members were not present, so he was again obliged to suspend the proceedings. That was the ninth occasion on which the Government had been unable to maintain a quorum They have 26 hon. Members on the Committee, and they are required to keep only 13 of them to have a quorum. The quorum is 14 hon. Members, plus the Chairman.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman talks about suspending the sittings. I am sure that he will agree that earlier in the Committee's proceedings the same Chairman suspended the sitting because of misdemeanours by one of his hon. Friends. Is not the blame shared?

Mr. Dixon: That was in the middle of the night when tempers were frayed. However, we are now talking about procedure and the Chairman of the Committee.
It is the Government's duty on a controversial and major Bill to keep a quorum. All that they are required to do is to keep half their members in the Committee. On nine occasions they have failed to do so.
I want to take up a point made earlier by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). He said that he was a new Member and that he believed that the House should decide the principle of legislation on Second Reading and then let the Standing Committee consider the

details. However, the hon. Gentleman should not be lecturing Opposition Members about that. He should lecture those of his colleagues who are members of the Committee considering the Civil Aviation Bill. The House decided on the principle of that Bill, but the Tory Members of the Standing Committee would not even give the Minister a sittings motion. It is not Opposition Members who require lectures from the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire; it is his own colleagues.
During business questions last week I suggested that one of the reasons why the Government wanted this guillotine motion was that their failure to have half their members present during the Committee stage was an embarrassment to them.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) was right when he said that the Bill should have been in Committee before Christmas, but that it was such a mess that the Government had to rush and cobble up the present Bill following numerous objections made by many sections of the transport industry.

Mr. Parris: What is the Opposition's position? Is it that the Bill should have been in Committee before Christmas, or that the Government should have delayed the Committee stage until the Select Committee had reported? They cannot hold both positions at the same time.

Mr. Dixon: My point is that the Bill was in such a mess before Christmas that the Government dared not introduce it and that they have cobbled up the present Bill. That was why the Select Committee inspected the Bill. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) is a member of the Select Committee. He and his colleagues interviewed people from all parts of the transport industry, and I am told that the only person in favour of the Bill was its author. None of the witnesses interviewed by the Select Committee was in favour of the Bill.
Speaking at a bus and coach dinner, the Secretary of State for Transport said that he wished to fashion a better Bill in Committee. He was speaking about the present Bill, which had just received a Second Reading. I am told that his speech went down like a lead balloon. In fact, had it not been such a cold evening and had there not been a fault in the central heating, there would have been no applause for the Secretary of State at the end of his speech.
I see the Secretary of State smiling at that. Obviously he does not want me to tell the story about the person whom he met in the Committee Corridor who asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he recognised him. The Secretary of State replied, "I am sorry, I do not recognise you. Why should I?" The chap said to him, "I was at the bus and coach dinner last week when you spoke." The right hon. Gentleman said, "There were hundreds of people there. Why should I recognise you now?" The chap's answer was, "Well, I was the one who clapped."
If the Secretary of State was genuine about wanting to fashion a better Bill in Committee, he would have accepted some of the amendments tabled by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) spoke about amendments dealing with concessionary fares. When concessionary fares were discussed in Committee, the Secretary of State said that if private bus companies did not pick up old-age pensioners who might prevent fare-paying passengers getting on their buses,


perhaps a ghost service should run alongside to pick up the old-age pensioners. That is the kind of nonsense that we have heard from the Minister when we have discussed important issues such as concessionary fares. What is more, when we talked about taxi-drivers' hours last week, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary compared them with the hours worked by Members of Parliament. That is typical of the response that we have had in the Standing Committee.

Mr. Wareing: One of the reasons for the Government's embarrassment and their desire to get shot of the Bill quickly may be that the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who caused the suspension of the Committee's sitting on the occasion to which my hon. Friend referred, said that Conservatives wanted to see the healthy people in the community catered for by bus services and that only when services were commercially viable and profitable would they consider the needs of — [Interruption.] Hon. Members protest because they know that I have hit the nail on the head. The hon. Member for South Hams suggested that only then would the Conservative party consider the disadvantaged, the disabled and the old.

Mr. Dixon: My hon. Friend is right, The hon. Member for South Hams also said that he was the only qualified social worker serving on the Committee. He felt that, before bus operators could deal with concessions for the disabled, their services had to be profitable — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We asked whether that was the voice of the Tory party—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is on the record. Hon. Members should realise that what they say in the Standing Committee appears on the record and that they cannot deny their remarks when we come to the Floor of the House.
On numerous occasions during the Committee's proceedings, it became fairly obvious that Government supporters intended to procrastinate. That was clear from the start of the Committee stage. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), for example, made a long intervention.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: That is a most extraordinary accusation. Has not the Hereford trial area been quoted extensively and misquoted and misinterpreted — sometimes deliberately and at other times accidentally? In such circumstances, is not it essential for me as the hon. Member for Hereford to do all that I can, whenever I can, to correct the misunderstandings, deliberate or otherwise, that have been purveyed? To say that the hon. Member for Hereford has procrastinated when he has done no more than correct misunderstandings is almost a parliamentary insult.

Mr. Dixon: The hon. Gentleman has certainly procrastinated. As I have said, he made a speech of an hour or more at the beginning of the Committee. Moreover, his comments about the trial were not borne out by the objective recommendations made by the Select Committee after interviewing a wide range of people.
The Bill will have fundamental repercussions throughout the transport industry. That is why we want plenty of time to discuss it. The guillotine is unnecessary. Each of the 114 clauses is important, but the Government are trying to curtail discussion. Deregulation will mean that in many rural areas there will be no bus services in the

evening or at weekends because the one-bus entrepreneurs repairing their buses in motorway laybys will not run such services.
Pensioners are worried about concessionary fares. The Secretary of State could easily have set their minds at rest by writing into the Bill the provision that he was eventually persuaded to put into the London Regional Transport Bill. Conservative Members involved in that legislation had rather more backbone than those in the Committee on this Bill, and they forced the Secretary of State to make that concession.
On this Bill, we have had no satisfaction from the Government despite our many questions about provision for disabled people. The same applies to our questions about staff implications. The Government have given no figures at all. The National Bus Company is to be broken up and privatised. We have asked what size the sections will be, but no information has been forthcoming. Cross-subsidy is to be made illegal, but we have not been told what will happen to rural services as a result.

Mr. Forth: Is it correct, proper or fair for the hon. Gentleman to raise matters relating to clauses in the Bill beyond those that we have reached? Many Conservative Members are anxious to reach those clauses, but the Opposition have delayed and prevented us.

Mr. Dixon: If Conservative Members are so anxious to reach those clauses, they should have the decency to oblige their Whip by turning up so that the Committee has a quorum and can make progress. On nine occasions the 26 Conservative volunteers could not muster 14 to support the Minister.
With regard to Tyne and Wear, the Government have given no satisfactory answers to the points raised many times by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and others.
The Government are seeking to curtail debate on a very important Bill with fundamental repercussions for the transport industry throughout the country — not lust the people employed in it but the passengers, whom the Conservatives, like us, regard as most important. The Government also need the guillotine to get them out of an embarrassing position, because they cannot even persuade half their volunteer supporters to attend the Committee.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: I am one of those who volunteered to serve on the Committee, not because I have fair, curly hair and a beard or because I am numb of mind, but because, like my colleagues, I believe that this is a radical, liberating Bill. It will liberate many old-age pensioners and disabled and housebound people from the imprisonment imposed by their disabilities.
The guillotine will be liberating for the Opposition, because they have run out of arguments. They debated clause 1, the principle of the Bill, for more than 30 hours. I can understand the absence of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) who leads for the Opposition—heaven help them—in Committee. She has no doubt left her place because the hon. Member who assists her most in Committee, the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), has gone off and got married and is now on his honeymoon. I am sure that the whole House wishes the hon. Gentleman and his wife all the very best.
It is all very well for the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) to say that the Conservatives could not keep a


quorum in the Committee, but it was the hon. Gentleman and the Opposition who orchestrated that little campaign of schoolboy tricks. [Interruption.] I should not go so far as to call them public schoolboy tricks, except in the case of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay). That campaign was orchestrated by the very people who claim to be fighting for the elderly, the disabled and the underprivileged. They have wasted so much time when we might have reached the nitty gritty of this measure and made it a better Bill.
Which side of the Committee has genuinely tried to help the disadvantaged and the disabled? It has been the Conservatives. The hon. Member for Jarrow knows the record better than most. The greatest number of amendments to help the disabled and the elderly were tabled by Conservatives. Indeed, which side of the Committee obtained the major concession from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on concessionary fares? Again, it was the Conservatives. The Opposition, in their cynicism and manipulation of the fears of the elderly and infirm, deliberately forced the matter to a Division.

Mr. Wareing: The hon. Gentleman talks about the concession made by the Secretary of State. Does he even remember what it was?

Mr. Hayes: I can assist the House there. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the Government would introduce a new clause on Report to provide for an opting-out system on concessionary fares rather than the opting-in system currently provided for in the Bill. Indeed, my right hon. Friend went further. He said that the Government would introduce a code of conduct to assist private operators to help the disabled. He also said that the Government would bring in new construction and use regulations to assure safety and to prevent bunching, congestion and the kind of catastrophes predicted by the Opposition. That was a major concession, but the opposition had spent such a large amount of ratepayers' money for political reasons, in view of the county council elections to be held in the next few weeks, that they were horrified to find the Conservative party and the Government actually helping the disabled and the infirm.

Mr. Clay: We have heard a great deal from Conservative Members about the so-called concession that they believe they got from the Secretary of State about concessionary travel. Will the hon. Gentleman answer yes or no to this question? Does he believe that when the new clause that will introduce the concession is tabled the concessionay travel schemes will remain as beneficial as they are at the moment?

Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to the hon. Member for asking that question. We public schoolboys have to stick together. I shall be only too happy to listen with care to what my right hon. Friend the Secretay of State has to say on the new clause when he introduces it on Report. My right hon. Friend is bound by what he said in Committee. That is a matter of record, and I do not believe that my right hon. Friend will get away from what he said. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich may laugh, as she has done often in Committee, but my right hon. Friend has said that he will stick to the spirit of amendment No. 205, about which I was talking in particular.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North told us at great length about the wonders of the Tyne and Wear service, but he also told us how much it would cost the ratepayers. It was clear to the Committee that in precepting terms it would cost the ratepayers 54p in the pound to keep the Tyne and Wear transport system in operation. That is an enormous sum of money.
We have heard from Labour Members, and the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) in particular, that a delegation will come to lobby us tomorrow about clause 50, which concerns arrangements for pensioners. I shall be only too delighted to speak to those people, and I should love to be able to tell them what we have said in Committee about clause 50. However, I shall not be able to do so.

Mr. Forth: Would my hon. Friend care to extend that offer to any visitors who might come from Mid-Worcestershire, as I shall be in my constituency tomorrow?

Mr. Hayes: Of course I shall. If any of my hon. Friend's constituents come to the House and do not find him here, they will know that he is working hard in the constituency on their behalf, as he always does. However, if any come tomorrow, they will want to know — indeed, they should demand to know — what has been said in Committee about clause 50. The answer is that nothing has been said, because of the procrastination and time-wasting tactics of the Opposition. That is why I commend the guillotine motion to the House.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: This motion is absolutely outrageous, because it is an attempt to stifle democratic debate on some of the most potentially destructive legislation ever to have been introduced in this Parliament. Only 11 out of 114 clauses have been subjected to the scrutiny of the Committee, and if the motion is passed the opportunities for my hon. Friends on the Committee to scrutinise the legislation will be further hampered.

Mr. Forth: rose—

Mr. Canavan: I shall not give way, because the debate lasts for only three hours, as the guillotine motion itself has been guillotined. The hon. Gentleman has had a chance to make his own speech.
The motives behind this legislation and behind the motion are based on sheer doctrinaire hatred of public ownership and public enterprise. Even the Government did not realise how much public antipathy there would be to this Bill. It was mentioned in the Queen's Speech in November, but it was not published and introduced into the House until after the Christmas recess. The complaints from all those concerned about public transport, whether users, owners or the trade unions representing the workers in the industry, are genuine complaints about the lack of pre-legislative consultation. Now, as the legislation is going through the House, the Government should be making every effort to mend their ways and should give hon. Members a fair crack of the whip in putting their views to the Committee. Unfortunately, the motion will deprive them of that opportunity.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on 20 July 1976 the right hon.


Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) laid five guillotine motions before the House in one day? Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on that?

Mr. Canavan: That has nothing to do with this motion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) never came forward with such a nonsense of a Bill as this, which had inadequate consultation even before it was published. I am unable to find, apart from Conservative Members and a few of their friends who want to take advantage of privatisation and deregulation, anybody in favour of the legislation, whether in the industry, potential passengers or workers. Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us about that.
The Bill will have a devastating effect on passengers and workers. For passengers, privatisation or deregulation will not mean an improvement in the service. Inevitably, entrepreneurs will be interested only in the most lucrative routes. Therefore, people who live in outlying housing schemes or towns and villages will be put at a distinct disadvantage because their transport system will be reduced to next to nothing. The entrepreneurs will bid only for the lucrative intra-city services within urban areas and inter-city routes.
Fears have been expressed about environmental and safety factors and about some private cowboy operators racing each other in ramshackle vehicles to a decreasing number of bus stops.

Mr. Forth: rose—

Mr. Canavan: I shall not give way because I want some of my hon. Friends to get in, and I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to filibuster the debate.
Transport service workers are employed as drivers, maintenance engineers and so on in the bus garages, whether for the National Bus Company or the Scottish bus group north of the Border. There are also those who build the buses. In my constituency there is a firm of coachbuilders called Walter Alexanders. Without boasting, I can say that the workers in that factory are capable of building the best double decker buses in the world and their export achievements support that contention.
However, it is no use thinking simply in terms of exporting buses, whether to Hong Kong or Singapore, if, at the same time, the domestic market is suffering a recession as a direct result of Government economic policies. The recession in the domestic market will be made worse by the Bill. It will mean a decrease in employment opportunities for the workers in that factory, which is one of the biggest manufacturing units left in my constituency, where unemployment is already far too high. To give some idea of the deterioration that has occurred since the Government came to power, there has been a 50 per cent. reduction in the work force. It has dropped from over 1,000 to about 500.

Mr. Forth: rose—

Mr. Canavan: The management and the workers there speak with one voice on the Bill. They hear Ministers in Committee conjuring up visions of people running around in minibuses, microbuses and taxis. If people cannot afford a taxi, they will have to stay at home or walk. That might be all right for Ministers with their chauffeur-driven cars, which are run at the taxpayers' expense, but what about pensioners and the disabled, who are dependent

upon a decent public transport system? What use is a concessionary fare ticket through a local authority if there is no public transport system left worth talking about?
Mention has been made of tomorrow's transport lobby when, possibly, thousands of transport workers, and others who are concerned about the effects of the Bill, will converge on Parliament from all over Britain. It is an insult for the Government to be introducing a guillotine motion on the eve of one of the biggest lobbies of this Parliament. If ever there were a case for listening to the workers whose jobs are involved, this is it. Surely the Government should at least delay introducing a timetable motion until they have listened to the case that will be put by the workers tomorrow.
I am forced to the conclusion that the Government have introduced the timetable motion because they find it impossible to defend their legislation. Most Ministers are incompetent but even the most competent of the Ministers would find it impossible to defend the indefensible.

Mr. Forth: rose—

Mr. Canavan: No, I shall not give way.
Therefore, because Ministers cannot defend the indefensible it is their intention to try to cut democratic debate to a minimum and to bulldoze the timetable motion through on a three-line whip. They are making a mockery of parliamentary democracy. If is further proof, if proof were needed, that the Government often adopt tactics that have more in common with the jackboot tactics of Fascism than genuine participatory democracy.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but I have been provoked, if that is the right word, into so doing by some of the remarks that have been made.
My overall feeling today is one of disappointment. When we started consideration of the Bill I had hoped that we would be able to get through without having to come to the House with a guillotine motion, but my best hopes were dashed early on in the consideration of the Bill when it became apparent that the Opposition's arguments were thin and would be deployed time and again with no apparent recognition of the proper and correct refutations that were being steadily put forward.
The Opposition in their rhetoric have certainly said that they want to improve the Bill, but I can find nothing in their speeches or amendments that leads me to believe that they want to do anything other than wreck the Bill. Their rhetoric does not match their objectives. It is important that that is understood. The Opposition have not sought to "fashion a better Bill." Instead, the Committee has been led by Conservative Back Benchers who have sought to be of assistance in bringing forward arguments which could lead to a better Bill. I have heard little during most of the sittings that I have attended that has led me to believe that there has been much constructive thought among Opposition Members. Indeed, there has been much destructive thought.
It was apparent after a short time that the Bill could not be dealt with in Committee without a guillotine motion. The fact that the Committee spent 30 hours on clause 1 showed clearly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) said, that the principle of deregulation had been granted by the House. Therefore,


tactically speaking, it was wrong for the Opposition to seek to destroy the Bill and to bring about the circumstances which would drive the Government to introduce a guillotine motion.
Tactically, the Opposition would have done better to accept that the will of the House was to move towards a deregulated transport system and then to seek to achieve all the various points about which there is genuine concern in the country—the real, not the rhetorical, points. The Opposition have now damaged that opportunity. If the Bill does not emerge from Committee as fully discussed as I would like it to be, I can look myself in the eye in the mirror and my colleagues in the face and say that it was not because of the actions of Conservative Members but because of the Opposition's ill-judged tactics. The Opposition have served their interests ill in the way that they have tackled this measure.
The Opposition showed great commitment to the principle of opposing the Bill clause by clause, line by line. Yet, as we have seen, they were content to be manipulated out of the Committee so as to try to destroy the quorum. They were content to be the Lobby fodder or the lackeys of the Opposition Whip in his tactical mismanipulation of the Bill. No one is served well by such an approach.

Mr. Forth: I know that my hon. Friend is by nature a modest and unassuming man, but will he take this opportunity to refute the disgraceful claim by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) earlier that he had made a long intervention in Committee? It was the wish and desire of the Committee to hear at first hand of the experience in Hereford from my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) in order to lay to rest all the misquotations and distortions that were coming from the Opposition about the experiment. Does my hon. Friend accept that that was the fact?

Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing out that significant and important point.
Today, we heard the same old prophecies of doom from the hon. Members for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). They are confident that there will be no buses at all.
I have some further news for the House tonight. The Herefordshire Federation of Women's Institutes has, with the assistance of the local rural community council, conducted an arm's-length survey of all the 123 branches of the women's institutes within Herefordshire. Some interesting figures emerged. The responses were returned on a 9: 2 ratio between those who are inside and those who are outside the trial area. The figures relate to rural buses, about which the fear of God has been put into so many pensioners and others stuck out in the countryside.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Quite rightly.

Mr. Shepherd: If the hon. Gentleman knows where the countryside is, he might like to listen.
Of those within the trial area, 35 per cent. felt that the frequency of services was worse, but 41 per cent. thought that it was the same and 23 per cent. thought that it was better. That means a substantial majority in terms of better services.
On punctuality, 5 per cent. thought that services were worse, 61 per cent. thought that they were the same and 32 per cent. thought that they were better. Appropriate timing is an important factor, and in that category 27 per cent. thought that services were worse, 52 per cent. thought that they were the same and 20 per cent. thought that they were better.
Much has been said about reliability. The survey shows that 2 per cent. found that the reliability of services was worse, 73 per cent. said that it was the same and 25 per cent. reported that it was better. The figures show that 4 per cent. found drivers' attitudes worse, 59 per cent. found them the same and 37 per cent. thought that they were better. On bus fares, 35 per cent. found them worse, 40 per cent. said that they were the same and 26 per cent. said that they were better.
Those figures reveal substantial confidence. Let me give just two more sets of statistics. The women's institutes were asked how they would describe the bus services in their areas and responses were sought from those inside the trial areas and from those outside. The figures showed that 40 per cent. of those inside the trial areas, but only 9 per cent. of those outside, found services "reasonably adequate for needs." Another category was
Not good but all that can be expected.
The survey showed that 32 per cent. of those inside the trial area took that view of their services, compared with 36 per cent. outside. Another category was
Though basic services are adequate, there are needs not met which cause serious problems.
Within the trial areas, 28 per cent. agreed with that description of their services, but the figure outside the trial area was 45 per cent. In the category "Completely inadequate for needs," the figures were about the same: 10 per cent. inside the area and 9 per cent. outside the area agreed with that description.
All those figures show that the bus services inside the trial area are infinitely better than the services outside. They give the lie to the prophecies of doom that we hear from the Opposition.

Mr. Maclean: Those figures are devastating proof of the success of the Hereford trial area. Those of us from other parts of the country want to share in that success by having deregulation in our areas. Will my hon. Friend circulate those figures to his hon. Friends and bring them up in Committee so that we can have proof of how well the experiment in Hereford has worked?

Mr. Shepherd: I shall circulate the figures. They are hot off the press. The rural community council wanted to make sure that the outside world understood the grass roots views of those who live in Herefordshire and use public transport. I shall bring out the figures in Committee, because they are important.
The figures underline the need for people in the countryside to lobby candidates in the forthcoming county council elections to ensure that they are committed to transport in the rural areas. That is vital. With deregulation it will be easier to reverse the trend of decline in public transport. That will enable those living in rural areas to achieve a better standard of transport than if we allow the present decline to continue, at enormous cost. The message is clear.
I am disappointed that, because of the attitude of Opposition Members, we have not had the opportunity to


discuss some important matters. I shall try to continue to spell out the lessons of the Hereford trial as the Bill proceeds through Committee.

Mr. Richard Caborn: The reason for the lengthy discussions in Committee is that this is an ill-considered Bill. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) has demonstrated the problems that the Government face in justifying the Bill.
The massive opposition to the Bill comes from a wide spectrum. I will deal later with the view of the women's institutes, but the Association of District Councils, chambers of commerce and many other organisations have lobbied members of the Committee to put across their point of view because they thought that the Secretary of State was serious when he said that the Government would try to "fashion a better Bill". It has been clearly shown that that is not the case.
We must also take into account the report of the Select Committee on Transport, which was highly critical of the Bill and said that the timetable laid down in it was too speedy in view of the massive changes that would be necessary.
It is interesting to compare the experiences of Hereford and South Yorkshire. They are opposites in the provision of public transport. The hon. Member for Hereford told the Committee about the Hereford experiment in some detail. I think that the women's institute figures were fairly selective, but the hon. Gentleman said:
I spent a lot of time talking to people riding the buses—the customers. I carried out my survey with a number of chums on a structured basis over a period, using buses early in the morning, at peak times and on Saturdays on all the services in Hereford. We asked people". — [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 February 1985; c. 93.]
The hon. Gentleman listed a series of questions and answers. His constituents came out positively in favour of the Hereford scheme. However, he did not tell us how that scheme was funded. Later in the Committee proceedings we discovered why the results in Hereford were so significant. Massive cross-subsidy was used to achieve the results. The hon. Member put the argument about Midland Red. He said:
If MIdland Red (West) had not had, in effect, a funnel of resources coming in from the other end of its operations, it would not be able to sustain the level of buses that it is now sustaining in Hereford. The level of bus services that it is now sustaining in Hereford means 10 buses more than it felt were needed to provide a proper and profitable service when the experiment was set up. That reservoir of support from outside would not be available to Midland Red it it had to look in all directions at the same time."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 March 1985; c. 632–3.]
We see that Hereford, which was held up as a classic example of free enterprise and deregulation, was actually an area in which Midland Red used massive cross-subsidies which, I have no doubt, had a major bearing on the figures that the hon. Member for Hereford has just given the House.
Let us contrast the position in Hereford with what happens in South Yorkshire, which has stood up to every scrutiny by every outside body that has examined the system, not over only two and a half years, but over the past 10 or 12 years. South Yorkshire has a population of 1·3 million and 350 million journeys are made every year. [Interruption.] The criteria for using national resources should be their effectiveness and not the amount of profit

that can be made or the degree of exploitation that can be carried out. But every study that has been made into the use of national resources has supported that mode of transport. Indeed, even the Conservative Members of the European Parliament came to that conclusion after carrying out some investigations. Every experiment in Europe has followed that path. Britain will be the only country in Western Europe to go back to the position that existed 50 or 60 years ago.
The South Yorkshire scheme has stood the test of time. It has genuinely tried to serve the people efficiently and cost-effectively. If this legislation is imposed on counties such as South Yorkshire, they will have to increase their bus fares by something in excess of 300 per cent. in a period of six months just to keep 10 to 15 per cent. of routes within the passenger transport authorities. As a result of legislation pushed through by this Government, the metropolitan counties will be dismantled. In addition, rate capping is being imposed on Sheffield. Even the chamber of commerce has realised the devastation that will take place. It is extremely concerned that, as a result of the legislation, there could be pay increases of £10 a week just to provide the sort of transport system that the Government wish to impose.
The Bill is extremely important. Despite what Conservative Members say, we have not been filibustering. We have been trying to express the concern felt by industry and by our constituents. They want a more co-ordinated transport system that will use the United Kingdom's resources much more effectively and efficiently. However, we have been barred from voicing those concerns. In framing this "better" Bill the Government have merely conceded that the age of traffic commissioners should fall from 70 to 65. That is an insult to the people of the United Kingdom, as will be amply demonstrated tomorrow, when there will be a massive lobby of Parliament. It will consist not only of transport workers but of the many people who are concerned about the United Kingdom's transport system. This Bill seeks to destroy that system.

Mr. Tony Marlow: The system for the control and regulation of buses has been in existence for some 50 years. Many of us have not even lived that long. During the past 10 years subsidies have increased from £10 million to £520 million, a 52-fold increase. During the past 10 years the cost of running buses has increased by 15 to 30 per cent., while fares have increased by about 30 per cent. In the past 30 years the use of buses, as a proportion of transport, has fallen from 42 per cent. to 8 per cent. That is hardly a successful formula and the situation should hardly remain unconsidered or unchanged.
The Bill is vital, and it should have proper discussion. Like all major Bills, it has been considered upstairs in Committee. Of course, no hon. Member ever filibusters, but hon. Members do their damnedest to do so. The sooner we get on with the timetable motion, the sooner we shall—as with previous Bills—have better and more sensible debate.
We are moving from regulation to competition. We are moving from planners and local authorities knowing best to people and consumers being able to decide and choose. We are moving towards a system that will be better for the


consumer, the taxpayer and those who work in the industry. The sooner we get on with it, and give it proper consideration, the better.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is an outrage that the Government should at this stage of such an important Bill demand a guillotine. It is important that the House should understand why. One reason is that there is growing unease in the country about the contents of the Bill. Although we have had one or two prima donna performances today, I must put the reality of the situation on record.
The Bill is not wanted by anyone. It is not demanded by bus passengers. The bus companies have not been lobbying the House for years for this Bill. It is not a Bill that the women's institutes have run to their Conservative Members of Parliament and demanded. This is a Bill about the Secretary of State and his obsessions. The sooner that that is made clear to people, the better they will understand what is happening in Committee.
It is extraordinary that a major Bill can be introduced without any real consultation. We have heard about a White Paper—not a Green Paper—that was presented to the House. It formed the basis of the Bill, but, despite the thousands of objections that the Secretary of State received, there was hardly one amendment to the legislation that he laid before the House.
When we accused Ministers of not having consulted anyone, the Under-Secretary of State did a little run around the country. I say "run around" deliberately, because he barely stopped to meet any elected person and he certainly did not listen to anything said to him. If he had done so, he would have heard exactly what rural dwellers and those who use the buses think about this extraordinary legislation.
In Committee, it became clear that no one had really thought about the Bill. As we have gone on, the Secretary of State has developed a new and somewhat extraordinary game called moving the goalposts. First, he calls Hereford in aid as often as possible, and the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) supports him with a long, if not pompous, speech. Then, as it becomes clear that the independent operators are going out of business in Hereford and that the difficulties are there for all to see, we are suddenly told that Hereford is only a small experiment. We are told that we do not need to worry about that, and that we should concern ourselves with other areas.
We have witnessed an interesting evolutionary process. The Conservative members of the Committee were picked with great care by the Committee of Selection, but they all have several things in common. Most of them are new Members of Parliament, and only one or two of them know anything about transport. Indeed, it would have been very embarrassing if they had undersood what they were being asked to support. The Conservative Members who were picked, despite being members of the Select Committee, were those who could be relied upon to say exactly what their masters wanted. But the rest of them went through a process of evolution. Originally, they intervened here or there. Then they began to make speeches, and by the end of last week they were actually asking awkward questions.
Perhaps that is why those who intervened most in Committee have not sought to take part in this debate. Where, for example, is our dear friend the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who made an entire career out of interventions? Where is the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) or the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), who arrived and then left? They are hiding from the fact that the House would be very dispirited if it knew with what ruthlessness the Bill was being pushed through.
No Conservative Member can seriously suggest that the Bill is about transport. If we were talking about how to improve the bus or taxi industries some of the amendments would have been accepted. But something different happened. Conservative Members tabled an amendment which, they said, concerned concessionary fares. Labour Members actually care about concessionary fares. We think that those who use the buses — the young, those without cars and the elderly — are important, but the Government have left them out right down the line.

Mr. Forth: rose—

Mrs. Dunwoody: Conservative Members tabled an amendment. They made great play of the fact that they were so concerned about concessionary fares that they wanted to obtain a very strong commitment from the Secretary of State. What happened? The Secretary of State made several vague comments. He did not say that he would accept the amendment, or that it was badly drafted, but that he would table another, equivalent one. He said that he accepted not the content but the spirit of the amendment.

Mr. Forth: rose—

Mrs. Dunwoody: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman made his speech and I have little time available to me.
There was an even more interesting phenomenon. If Conservative Members were serious about protecting concessionary fares, as they were during the passage of the London Regional Transport Bill, why did they not vote for their amendments? Why did so many of them vote against their own amendments? Why did one hon. Member, who obviously could not be trusted to vote against an idea in which he sincerely believed, absent himself from the vote and then appear on regional television telling everyone that they had no need to worry because concessionary fares were to be protected for all time?
This is a very bad Bill. It concerns not only the safety of bus passengers but, in future, the safety of those who travel by taxi. In theory, the Bill opens up all sorts of new areas to the entrepreneur who, we are told, will rush forward with special schemes and provide transport throughout the country. The reality is very different. The first clause on deregulation destroys machinery that has been in operation since the late 1920s. That machinery was brought into place because it was known that the open anarchy and chaos that existed on the roads was not in the interests of passengers or anyone running a bus company. Indeed, in the final analysis it had to be changed, and there was an all-party decision to change the legislation.
All these years later, the Secretary of State says that all he is doing is changing the position to give greater freedom to passengers. In support of that idea, he always quotes costs. Why is he so obsessed? That is the only aspect of


the bus industry that he is prepared to take seriously. He never talks about what will actually happen on concessionary fares for the disabled and the elderly. He never explains that, if timetabling and through-ticketing are wiped out, we will not improve the services but will deprive those most desperately in need of support. That has been the basis of the discussion on this legislation.
It is startling how often, when specific amendments are put forward, the Secretary of State merely says, "The hon. Lady does not understand" or, "The hon. Gentlemen are not aware of the implications of their amendments." What he really means is that we are only too aware. The reason why Conservative Members frequently try to decry the proceedings in Committee is that they cannot afford to have the electorate understand what they have in mind. They need privacy and quietness. They do not want the county or district councils or the women's institutes or any other group to ensure that the electorate know what is happening to their bus services; that might be too inconvenient.
The people of a village in the Secretary of State's constituency are worried about the only bus service in the morning. What will happen when they realise that the right hon. Gentleman's legislation is likely to put that service at risk? What will happen if that is repeated throughout the country? Conservative Members might receive increasing numbers of letters.
Table 3.6 of the White Paper on the Government's expenditure plans shows the real attitude of the Secretary of State to the provision of subsidies for any sort of public transport. Revenue support for public transport will go down from £559 million in 1984–85 to £247 million in 1985–86. That is the basis of this legislation. He is not genuinely concerned whether people in the villages can get their children to school or their grandmothers to the doctor. He is not even faintly concerned whether people can get to work in the towns or whether whole areas in cities will be deprived of their services late at night and on Sundays. He is not concerned with producing a Bill that will be a better Bill after it leaves Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman's reason for imposing a guillotine now is clear—because we have just finished discussing part I. He knows that there are many vital matters still to be discussed. For example, we need to know why, if deregulation is such a brilliant idea, it is not being applied to London. We want to know what will happen to the 55,000 staff who the Secretary of State said with great aplomb would go into the private sector. We want to know what will happen to their pensions and why they have not been underwritten in the Bill. We want to know what will happen to the existing National Bus Company companies. Although the right hon. Gentleman said that he wants them broken up, he has given no sign of how to achieve that. He is not even prepared to discuss their financial viability.
We especially want to know what will happen about the local passenger transport services. Unless we know what will happen to the PTEs, we will not know whether the Secretary of State will pursue his obsession to the extent of wholly wrecking the transport system in this country. Above all, we want to know what will happen about concessionary travel schemes and about rural area grants, about which he has been extraordinarily sanguine and quiet. He has not dared to match the amount of money that he has mentioned with the need in the rural areas that will arise because of this legislation.
It would be pleasant if we were to hear exactly what will happen about the rail replacement bus services. What will happen to British Rail if this Bill becomes law? Many people do not yet realise the extent of the damage that will be caused to their rail services and how many of them will be destroyed by this ill-thought-out, incompetent and absurd piece of machinery.
We want to know whether the Secretary of State has one coherent reason for foisting on the people of this country legislation that in three years will lead to chaos and dismay for many people, especially those who desperately need bus services to get to work and to enjoy a reasonable standard of life.
We want to say just one more thing to the right hon. Gentleman. If he has managed to dispirit and worry so many of the clones on his Back Benches, does it not occur to him that the electorate as a whole will soon cotton on to what this is all about? This is the most outrageous confidence trick and it is a shame that the Secretary of State should dare to come here and try to offload it on to Parliament.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced the guillotine motion last Thursday, there was no protest. The Leader of the Opposition said that today was not a convenient day for the motion because of the large bus lobby tomorrow. He did not say that the motion should not be put forward, simply that it was not convenient for discussion on Monday.
Will there be a massive disruption of services tomorrow as a result of bus crews coming to London? Is that the way that they will take out their views on their customers? If there is to be no disruption of services, it is further proof that the industry must be very overmanned if so many people can come to London.
Last Thursday the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said that he did not like the Bill, as did the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). However, the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Wigan (Mr. Stott) did not say a word. The truth is that the Opposition are so bored with their delaying tactics that they even forgot to make the ritual noises when the guillotine was announced.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) rightly said, nobody in the House is more keen to see the motion adopted than the Opposition. Labour Members are bored with their Second Reading arguments, which they have rehearsed time and again, and today, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said, they totally failed to get down to the detail of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich and several of her hon. Friends said that masses of important issues remained to be discussed and that everybody wanted to get on with discussing them. So do I and my hon. Friends, and if we had not wasted 94 hours in Committee we should have discussed them by now. Therefore, let us get on with the Bill.
Any dispassionate analysis of the facts will support the view that the Opposition have not used the time in Committee wisely. They wasted virtually a whole sitting debating the sittings motion. They moved an amendment to that motion seeking to delay the start of the Committee


stage until 12 March. Had they succeeded in that, the Committee would have had even less time in which to consider the Bill.
Up to the close of play last Thursday, the Committee had dealt with the first 13 pages of the Bill and consumed recklessly more than 94 hours of debate, a rate of more than seven hours of debate per page. There remain a further 128 pages of the Bill, which, at that rate, would mean nearly another 900 hours of debate to complete the Committee stage. That is what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich now calls driving the Bill through ruthlessly. I have never heard so much rubbish in my life. No Government, Conservative or Labour, faced with those facts would allow a major Bill in their programme to continue to make such slow progress.
The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) claimed that we had not made more progress because on frequent occasions the Committee was without a quorum. I have had the Hansard record checked. That check shows that we wasted two minutes out of over 94 hours through the lack of a quorum.
The hon. Member for Jarrow also referred to the Bus and Coach Council dinner. I agree that the applause at the end of my excellent speech was not rapturous. I was not surprised. I was delighted, however, by an experience that he did not have. As I was leaving, a young Scottish married couple told me, "We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. You have given us the chance to start our own business in the bus industry, something that we have always wanted to do. Get your Bill through as quickly as you can."
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney spoke about the bus manufacturing industry. There has been an enormous decline in that industry in the past three years, due largely to the fact that the last Labour Government withdrew bus grants, and partly it has been a reflection of the general decline of the bus industry. It is, therefore, a bit hard, when there has been that mammoth decline—we are seeking to put that right by the Bill—to lay the blame at the door of the Bill.

Mrs. Dunwoody: rose—

Mr. Ridley: I cannot give way because time is short.
The opportunities that the Bill will give to the bus industry are great. It will lead to new orders for new types of buses. Just as the deregulation of the long distance coaching industry led to a surge of orders for modern luxury vehicles for coaching, so the Bill will in due course create its own demand.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) said, throughout the Committee stage the Opposition tried to wreck rather than improve the Bill. We had the absurd argument—my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border recalled it—when debating one amendment that there would be no buses left on the roads once the Bill was on the statute book, and we were told when debating another amendment that the congestion would be so serious that our towns and cities would be blocked with competing buses. Opposition Members must make up their minds which it is to be.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney was, even for him, unusually badly briefed. He said that there had been no consultation. Was he not aware that seven consultative documents had been put out about the

Bill following the publication of the White Paper and that more than 7,000 replies had been received? The Bill was introduced a little late because we were considering those replies.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Government had not made any concessions in Committee. As we have been allowed to deal with only 11 clauses, it is not surprising that only three concessions have been offered by the Government. The first I do not make much of—the concession on the age of traffic commissioners — but I reiterate the enormous importance of the undertaking that I gave to protect the position of concessionary fares by insisting that all operators will have to opt into the concessionary fares scheme unless, through some appeal mechanism, good reason is given why they should not.

Mr. Shore: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny what was said in the quotation I gave from the Select Committee report about Humberside county council saying that consultation had been about the modalities of the Bill and that at no stage had the council been consulted about the underlying and fundamental principles and philosophy?

Mr. Ridley: That is rich coming from a right hon. Member who pushed through nationalisation and socialisation measures. I do not recall ever being consulted about whether we wanted to nationalise the bus industry in the first place. We do not consult on the main measures in our manifesto, any more than the Labour party ever did.
Next, I offered a major improvement for the elderly and disabled by improving the construction and use regulations—a legal instrument not in the Bill—by which buses can be designed and manufactured to standards more helpful to elderly and disabled people.

Mrs. Dunwoody: When?

Mr. Ridley: If the hon. Lady did not hear those matters being dealt with, she will find them, if she looks for them, in the Official Report.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney was surprised that vested interests in the industry had come forward so loudly. I do not know why he should have been surprised about that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West rightly pointed out, in 1952, when the road haulage industry was deregulated and denationalised — in the same way as we are dealing with the buses now—there was almost total opposition. In 1980, when the present Secretary of State for Social Services deregulated long distance coaches, the Opposition behaved in the same way as they have behaved towards this measure. It is no surprise to me that in 1985, when we deal with the next stage — the deregulation of stage buses — they should behave, as before, with the same excited over-exaggeration.
The answer, of course, is that Opposition Members cannot disentangle themselves from the interests of the operators and the trade unions in any industry. They can never see that what really matters is the passenger. They are prepared to ignore and neglect the passengers and pick up the stereotyped briefs that come from the industry to the denial of the truth for the passengers.
Many hon. Members questioned me about the position of the pensions of those in the PTEs. I wish that we had already reached the clauses in the Bill under which that issue could be discussed. As, no doubt, it will be said that


there is nothing on the subject in the Bill, perhaps I should comment on it. We are seeking to facilitate the option of employees in the PTE undertakings and municipal undertakings to remain with the local government superannuation scheme, to which they currently belong. We are discussing with local government representatives how to achieve that.
That will not necessarily involve any additions to the Bill, as there are existing powers under the Superannuation Act 1972. Thus, a successful conclusion to the negotiations would probably not require anything being added to the Bill. If this cannot be achieved, we shall inform the Committee of the position. We hope to produce a satisfactory answer in good time.
Several hon. Members have referred to the Select Committee on Transport and its report. It is a curious thought that the convention is that Governments do not comment upon or make reference to reports of Select Committees until the formal response has been made. As this has been the subject of endless debate by Members on both sides of the House, it is not exactly easy to adhere to that position. Instead of seeking to go deeply into the report in the few minutes that remain available to me, I shall merely say that in a short time we shall bring forward the Government's reply to the Select Committee's report. That will be a particularly quick response. We shall do so in such a way as to ensure that the Committee has the benefit of our reply to the report.
The use that has been made of the Select Committee on Transport by Labour Members—this has not been done by members of the Select Committee — has been designed to defeat the Bill or the policy that lies behind it. That is not the true purpose for which Select Committees were established. The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) even started to anticipate in the Chamber the results of his inquiries into the bus industry before the Committee had come to its consideration of the report. I had occasion to point that out to him. I hope that the House will not use Select Committees as a means of trying to provide opposition to Government legislation—

Mr. Canavan: Why not?

Mr. Ridley: —as opposed to inquiring into what is right and what is wrong. The Opposition, however, characterise themselves by what my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) described as a cynical manipulation of the fears of the elderly and the disabled. They have sought throughout to stir up groundless fears. Every time I try to put those fears to bed, the Opposition throw doubt upon the veracity of what I have to say.
The Committee has sat for 94 hours and during this period the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has had to announce his retirement at the end of this Parliament. My hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, East and for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) have both become proud fathers. I congratulate them both. The hon. Member for Wigan has decided to abandon us to pursue the joys of matrimony; we wish him well. It is clear from the facts and from the adventures of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) into the season when mistletoe buds should he planted that the Committee has had enough of the time wasting and long-winded nonsense to which it has had to listen for 94 hours. It is time to get on with the Bill, to end uncertainty—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 46 (Allocation of time to Bills).

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 189.

Division No. 174]
[6.43 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Greenway, Harry


Aitken, Jonathan
Gregory, Conal


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Ancram, Michael
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Ashby, David
Grist, Ian


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Ground, Patrick


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Grylls, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gummer, John Selwyn


Best, Keith
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hanley, Jeremy


Body, Richard
Hannam, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Harris, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Harvey, Robert


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Haselhurst, Alan


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Bright, Graham
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hawksley, Warren

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hayhoe, Barney


Buck, Sir Antony
Hayward, Robert


Budgen, Nick
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Burt, Alistair
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butcher, John
Henderson, Barry


Butler, Hon Adam
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hickmet, Richard


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hicks, Robert


Cash, William
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hirst, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Chope, Christopher
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Holt, Richard


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hordern, Peter


Clegg, Sir Walter
Howard, Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Coombs, Simon
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Cope, John
Hunter, Andrew


Corrie, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Crouch, David
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Dover, Den
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Durant, Tony
Key, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Emery, Sir Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Favell, Anthony
Knowles, Michael


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Knox, David


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lamont, Norman


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lang, Ian


Forman, Nigel
Latham, Michael


Forth, Eric
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lawrence, Ivan


Fox, Marcus
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Franks, Cecil
Lee, John (Pendle)


Freeman, Roger
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Gale, Roger
Lester, Jim


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Lightbown, David


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Lilley, Peter


Glyn, Dr Alan
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Gorst, John
Lord, Michael


Gow, Ian
Lyell, Nicholas


Gower, Sir Raymond
McCrindle, Robert


Grant, Sir Anthony
Macfarlane, Neil






MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Sayeed, Jonathan


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Maclean, David John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McQuarrie, Albert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Madel, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Major, John
Shersby, Michael


Malins, Humfrey
Silvester, Fred


Malone, Gerald
Sims, Roger


Marlow, Antony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Mather, Carol
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maude, Hon Francis
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Speller, Tony


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spencer, Derek


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Mellor, David
Squire, Robin


Merchant, Piers
Stanbrook, Ivor


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanley, John


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Steen, Anthony


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stern, Michael


Miscampbell, Norman
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Moate, Roger
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Stokes, John


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Moynihan, Hon C.
Sumberg, David


Murphy, Christopher
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Neale, Gerrard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Needham, Richard
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Nelson, Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Terlezki, Stefan


Newton, Tony
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Nicholls, Patrick
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Onslow, Cranley
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Thornton, Malcolm


Osborn, Sir John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Ottaway, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Tracey, Richard


Parris, Matthew
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Pattie, Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter


Pawsey, James
Waddington, David


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Portillo, Michael
Waldegrave, Hon William


Powell, William (Corby)
Walden, George


Powley, John
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Waller, Gary


Prior, Rt Hon James
Walters, Dennis


Proctor, K. Harvey
Ward, John


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Warren, Kenneth


Rathbone, Tim
Watson, John


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Watts, John


Renton, Tim
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Rhodes James, Robert
Wheeler, John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitney, Raymond


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Rifkind, Malcolm
Wilkinson, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wolfson, Mark


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wood, Timothy


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Yeo, Tim


Rost, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rowe, Andrew
Younger, Rt Hon George


Rumbold, Mrs Angela



Ryder, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Mr. Archie Hamilton.


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.



NOES


Abse, Leo
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Barnett, Guy


Alton, David
Barron, Kevin


Anderson, Donald
Beckett, Mrs Margaret


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bell, Stuart


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Benn, Tony


Ashton, Joe
Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)





Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Janner, Hon Greville


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
John, Brynmor


Bruce, Malcolm
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Buchan, Norman
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Caborn, Richard
Kennedy, Charles


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Kirkwood, Archy


Canavan, Dennis
Lambie, David


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Leadbitter, Ted


Cartwright, John
Leighton, Ronald


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Clarke, Thomas
Litherland, Robert


Clay, Robert
McCartney, Hugh


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cohen, Harry
McKelvey, William


Coleman, Donald
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Maclennan, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
McNamara, Kevin


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McTaggart, Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McWilliam, John


Corbett, Robin
Madden, Max


Corbyn, Jeremy
Marek, Dr John


Cowans, Harry
Martin, Michael


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Craigen, J. M.
Maxton, John


Crowther, Stan
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Meacher, Michael


Cunningham, Dr John
Michie, William


Dalyell, Tam
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Miller, Dr M.S. (E Kilbride)


Davis, Terry (B ham, H'ge H'l)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Deakins, Eric
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Dewar, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dobson, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dormand, Jack
Nicholson, J.


Dubs, Alfred
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
O'Brien, William


Eadie, Alex
O'Neill, Martin


Eastham, Ken
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Park, George


Ewing, Harry
Pavitt, Laurie


Fatchett, Derek
Pendry, Tom


Faulds, Andrew
Pike, Peter


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fisher, Mark
Prescott, John


Flannery, Martin
Randall, Stuart


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Redmond, M.


Forrester, John
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Foster, Derek
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Freud, Clement
Robertson, George


Garrett, W. E.
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


George, Bruce
Rooker, J. W.


Godman, Dr Norman
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Gould, Bryan
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Gourlay, Harry
Ryman, John


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Sheerman, Barry


Hardy, Peter
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Harman, Ms Harriet
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Skinner, Dennis


Haynes, Frank
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Heffer, Eric S.
Snape, Peter


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Spearing, Nigel


Home Robertson, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Strang, Gavin


Hoyle, Douglas
Straw, Jack


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)






Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Winnick, David


Tinn, James
Woodall, Alec


Torney, Tom
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Wainwright, R.
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)



Wallace, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Mr. Norman Hogg and


Wareing, Robert
Mr. Don Dixon.


Wigley, Dafydd

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

Committee

1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 7th May 1985.

Report and Third Reading

2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 45 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 45 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on first allotted day

7.—(1) On the first allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
(3) If the first allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to a bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall riot be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or


(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal

12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of recommittal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—

"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
"the Bill" means the Transport Bill;
"Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Birmingham City Council Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) to move the Second Reading of the Bill, I should inform the House that I have selected instruction 7—
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to amend Clause 15 so as to prohibit the Council demanding payment from occupiers or owners of dwellings which display advertisements.—
and instruction 9:
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to amend Clause 11 to provide a scheme of preferential treatment for Birmingham ratepayers.
It may be for the convenience of the House to debate those instructions with the Bill.

Sir Reginald Eyre: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for what you have just said about the instructions.
It is well known that the great increase in oil prices, the world trade recession and the new industrial revolution have had a severe effect upon the economy of Birmingham and the west midlands. The decline of metal-based manufacturing compels us energetically to seek to strengthen the base of our continuing industries and, at the same time, to diversify our local economy and create new job opportunities by developing new activities and attractions. The Bill provides us with an opportunity to serve both purposes.
The Bill has two main aims. The first is to create a major annual international tourist attraction for Birmingham and the west midlands with a race through the streets on one day of the year—a bank holiday Monday — with preparation and practice runs on the previous day. The events would feature formula cars and historical racing cars. The races, which will have a saloon car focus, will take place through city streets, which, due to a unique post-war road development, provide a natural urban road-race circuit.
The second aim is to promote Birmingham as a motor city, which it most certainly is, and to give the motor industry of Birmingham and the west midlands, including its component manufacturies and the many thousands employed in different ways in connection with the industry, a feeling of encouragement and support which we believe enthusiastic public support for the event would ensure.
I shall emphasise the importance of several factors relevant to the proposals for the Birmingham motor race. Under clause 3 the one authorised day in each year will be the last Monday in August, now a bank holiday, or any other bank holiday Monday the city may by resolution appoint other than 26 and 27 December or 1 and 2 January. The first road race to be held under the Bill will be in August 1986, allowing plenty of time for preparation.
The race project enjoys overwhelming all-party support on the city council. On 16 November 1984, 90 members voted for it and 13 against, with five abstentions. It also achieved 93 per cent. support in a referendum conducted among the residents of the area in which the event will take place. The project has the support of influential organisations such as the Heart of England tourist board, Birmingham international airport and the national


exhibition centre. In addition, it is supported by major companies such as Austin Rover, Shell UK Oil, Cadbury Schweppes, IMI; GKN and Davenports.
The proposed circuit is to be formed from lengths of a public highway near to the city centre. It will be almost 2·5 miles long. There are many areas of open space bordering the track and the stands for the spectators would be located there. Along this unique road formation there are adequate spaces for pits, and the wholesale market complex, which adjoins the circuit, will house all the competitors' support teams as the market complex is closed on bank holiday weekends.
Television film of the circuit will provide attractive views of a modern city, its buildings, open spaces and trees. In the careful choice of route and arrangements, great consideration has been given to environmental factors so as to minimise the potential effect on residential areas, any conflict with major traffic routes or interference with public transport. With regard to instruction 3, all trees will be safeguarded.
In all the planning for the projects, the greatest possible emphasis has been placed on safety considerations. Circuit safety precautions are designed to meet the highest international standards and to contain any potential accident and the resultant debris within the circuit perimeter from which all spectators are excluded. To safeguard competitors, all bends and corners will have run-off areas, tyre walls and impact absorbing protection incorporated in the construction. Every care will be taken to minimise the risk of accident during the proposed event.
A feasibility study, carried out by the Royal Automobile Club motor sport, the circuit licensing authority, has said that the proposed circuit can be adapted to comply with all current international safety regulations and requirements. The city was grateful to the RAC officials for their detailed work in that respect for more than two years. The city wishes to co-operate fully with the RAC motor sport authority in all arrangements for future events.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Was any idea of the cost given in that feasibility study?

Sir Reginald Eyre: Yes. I shall be coming to the cost in a few moments. I assure my hon. Friend that it was as a result of the feasibility study that accurate costing items could be calculated, and that was helpful to the city in the presentation of its case.
In some areas the highway will need to be slightly widened to meet the minimum width requirements. When carried out, they will improve existing traffic conditions in the streets affected. Before any racing can take place, streets must have safety barriers and debris fences erected. Both fences are to ensure safety and are made of steel motorway-type barriers and reinforced steel mesh on steel stanchions. It is intended that those structures would be erected from previously prepared foundations located within the highway and sealed with protective covers when not in use. That system is used in other countries where streets are used for motor racing and works entirely satisfactorily.
In the event of an emergency, whether connected with the racing event or not, the circuit design incorporates access points for the use of the emergency services and statutory undertakers. Those points have been chosen after consultation with all interested parties. Within seconds of

the circuit control being made aware of any potential emergency, racing can be terminated by the flag marshals, situated round the circuit, and emergency vehicles can enter the circuit to deal with the problem.

Mrs. Jill Knight: All the details given by my hon. Friend suggest a considerable amount of work for the police. Can my hon. Friend say what the police have said about the matter?

Sir Reginald Eyre: I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the police authority has, of course, been consulted throughout the preparatory negotiations, and the police have approved the safety aspects of all the measures that I have mentioned. I think my hon. Friend will be very pleased to hear that.
The arrangements are being formalised in an agreed code of practice covering the emergency services for the event. The route chosen also allows safe spectator access to be maintained to all areas, even during racing. Obviously certain traffic routes have to be diverted during the event. Again, adequate diversion routes exist and have been used satisfactorily during a dress rehearsal for the event, which was the motor cavalcade held on 14 October 1984. It was a great success and attracted 100,000 to 200,000 spectators for events.
Special arrangements and facilities are to be made to assist disabled persons wishing to attend the event, as happened in the previous motor cavalcade event, and hope that that assurance will be satisfactory to the hon. Members who are supporting instruction 6, in the name of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook).
Within a short distance of the proposed circuit there are car parking facilities to accommodate the estimated number of visitors—about 250,000 for the two days—who would attend the events. The city centre is well served with bus, rail and air services to cope with visitors travelling from further afield and from overseas. It is intended, in conjunction with the operators, that bus, rail and coach services would be increased over the race period to provide travel facilities for visitors.
All spectators would be accommodated in temporary grandstands, seated or in stand areas where the natural ground contours allow a good view of the event. Care would be taken, in siting spectator accommodation, to avoid interference with frontagers' normal rights and, as I have said, verges, trees and shrubbed areas would be protected.
In dealing with a further point raised by the RAC, I want to make it clear that Birmingham will take all steps to reduce disruption of traffic to the minimum. Clause 5 states that Birmingham shall not close any street to pedestrian or vehicular traffic except between 9 o'clock in the morning and 6 o'clock in the afternoon on the authorised day and the day immediately preceding that day. That deals with the two days of the event.
Under clause 2, the
'relevant period', means the period commencing 10 days before and ending five days after the authorised day.
The traffic management arrangements to keep the traffic flow as normal as possible during that period will be as follows. The road works connected with widening, which I mentioned earlier, and which are required to achieve minimum track widths, will be carried out as a phased programme and are intended to be carried out in the months preceding the proposed event. The estimated commencing day for that work would be in April 1986.


Those works are minor alterations to the carriageway and will necessitate only lane closures to carry out the work, and only for a limited period.
Fences, guard rails and the like are to be erected in preset foundations. The foundations will be constructed as a once-and-for-all exercise.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Clearly the precautions being taken by the city are praiseworthy, and will be extremely expensive. What is the likely turnover from the event? Is it likely that any new jobs will be forthcoming as a result of it?

Sir Reginald Eyre: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those points because I propose, in a few moments, to come to the city council's estimates in those respects. I think that I shall be able to show that a valuable flow of business and of job opportunities will be created by this endeavour.
The foundations will be constructed as a once-and-for-all exercise. Where possible, they will be constructed during road widening, which has been referred to before. Many of the remainder will be located in verges or footpaths. Again, only slight narrowing of the carriageway will be required to achieve working space for that construction.
Where foundation places are required in the carriageway, lane closures will be operated, and — I emphasise a point of practical importance—a restriction of working hours will be made to prevent any interference with peak traffic flows.
When the sockets and foundations have been constructed, the annual setting up and taking down of barriers will be carried out either by using lane closures or by working within footpaths, verges or central reservations. It is emphasised that working patterns will be tailored to minimise interference with traffic, and peak hour working will be prohibited on main roads.
Spectator stands will be brought into place and unloaded using routes which avoid lorries and cranes working from main roads, and stands will not be erected on the carriageway.
I can sum up the operation by saying that no works which are required for the preparation of the roads for motor racing will require any road to be completely closed during the erection or dismantling process. The powers are being sought to permit partial closure of a highway — that is, one lane of a carriageway—to permit works to be carried out. There are no powers to do that under existing legislation for purposes other than road widening. Special enabling powers have to be sought for works on a highway in connection with the proposed motor racing. The police authority, as I have said, has approved those arrangements from the point of view of safety.
I now refer to points raised with regard to capital and revenue expenditure by the city council in that connection, beginning with capital expenditure.
Since total local authority spending on land, buildings, roads and so on is controlled by the Government—and has been controlled by successive Governments — by capital spending allocations and restrictions on the use of capital receipts, the initial road alterations and setting-up costs would count against the city spending limits and would utilise resources which otherwise could be spent on other city services.
However, the capital expenditure envisaged, £1·5 million, in setting up the business is relatively small in relation to the city's total capital expenditure, and could in any case be spread over two financial years. It can be regarded as good value for money, in the sense that it would generate income from the motor race, which would improve the city's revenue position and thereby free resources to be spent on other services. In the long run, housing, education and other services could benefit significantly from the motor race, for which a relatively minor initial sacrifice in capital expenditure terms could be considered worth while.

Mr. Peter Fry: My hon. Friend is outlining the advantages to Birmingham ratepayers of having such a race. Is there not a danger that other cities will want to emulate Birmingham, and before we know it we shall have many applications from cities that are not in the same state as Birmingham, in the sense that their road systems might not be so suitable?

Sir Reginald Eyre: I welcome the way in which my hon. Friend put that question. Natives of the city of Birmingham undoubtedly feel that other cities seek to emulate it. Birmingham has a unique road formation. It has been carefully chosen and avoids interruption with the main city centre traffic and difficulty with the bus services. It is just away from the city centre, and therefore has the least possible disadvantage. I believe that because of the fortunate chance of great investment in the road network in Birmingham and the fortunate fact that this part of the network can be taken out and treated specially, with all its safeguards, it is unique in the United Kingdom. I do not believe that any other local authority would be able to match it.
The city has not made provision in its capital budget for motor race expenditure and has therefore not pre-empted resources from other services.
I refer to revenue expenditure. Since the city envisages the motor race at worst breaking even in revenue or year-to-year operating terms, and probably generating significant income, there is no question of revenue resources being diverted from other spending areas. That is where a reference to leaking roofs may be made as one-off housing repairs are met from revenue resources. As I have said, such areas of city spending may well benefit from the motor race proceeding, and there is no conflict of priorities. As revenue spending is repeated annually, it would not take long for annual benefits to cancel out the initial capital contribution, so that should be seen as a major financial factor in the debate.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I am not sure whether something that the hon. Gentleman has just said is accurate. Does he not know that Birmingham city council capitalises its housing repairs? They are not done from revenue.

Sir Reginald Eyre: I am told that there is a technical distinction between certain forms of housing repair expenditure which is revenue and certain forms of housing expenditure which is treated on a capital basis. I realise that the hon. Gentleman specialises in the subject, and may have more particular knowledge of where the line is drawn between those two forms of expenditure on housing provision than I have. If so, I shall be interested to listen to him, although the argument that I am developing is that


this relatively small expenditure based on municipal self-help will in due course be of great advantage to the city in creating extra resources.
It is the hope of the city council, based on careful study of all the factors involved, that besides promoting the city and encouraging tourism, the motor racing will generate income and so extra resources for the city. Even in the short term there are immediate benefits from spending by visitors to the event itself—tourists, sponsors, press and television crews, manufacturers' team support, tyre, fuel and oil companies, circuit and grandstand builders and celebrities. It is thought that on average at least £40 per day per visitor will be spent on hotels, food and drink, taxis, shopping, bus fares and entertainment. Direct income will come from gate receipts, sponsorship, television rights and franchise rights for wearing apparel, posters, brochures, market stalls, trade displays and food vendors.

Mr. James Couchman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the premier grand prix race around the streets of Monaco — obviously Birmingham will have considered that race — brings in about £8 million, according to current exchange rates? Is he further aware that the city of Monte Carlo, or Monaco itself, expects to lose money against that income each year?

Sir Reginald Eyre: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but the figure of about £8 million that he quotes would be enormously attractive to the city of Birmingham on the revenue side. I assure my hon. Friend that we provide services at a much better figure than Monaco.
Only five petitions have been deposited in respect of the Bill, and in none of them is any objection raised in principle to the Bill. Negotiations with the parties concerned are taking place. The points of detail involved require consideration in Committee.
I have referred to instructions 3 and 6, and I should like to deal with the remaining instructions. Following the reference to financial matters, it is appropriate to refer to instruction 4 in the name of the hon. Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), in which they ask that detailed accounts be published. The answer is, "Yes, most certainly." All those details will be supplied by the city council on an annual basis. I agree entirely that that should be a proper provision by the city council.
Instruction 5, in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) as well as the other three Birmingham Members I have mentioned, concerns the supply of equipment and materials. I assure those hon. Members and the House that the city council will wish to comply, subject to the EEC regulations, in that respect.
Instructions 1 and 2 relate to South Africa and cigarette advertising respectively and are in the names of the hon. Members for Erdington, for Perry Barr and for Hodge Hill, with the addition of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) to the former. With regard to South Africa, I emphasise that the city council will of course honour and fully comply with the terms of the Gleneagles agreement, which applies in these circumstances. Tobacco sponsorship of sport in the United Kingdom has been restricted since 1977 by voluntary agreement. Again, Birmingham city council will strictly comply with the terms of any such agreement applying in the United Kingdom.
Instruction 7 relates to clause 15. I appreciate that Mr. Speaker referred specifically to that instruction. The Bill does not contain any provision that prevents people from putting advertisements on their own property, or requires such advertisements to be taken down, unless a fee is paid to the city council. However, in view of the concern that has been expressed, the city is considering rewording the clause in Committee to make the position absolutely clear and to show that no charge is payable by owner-occupiers in those circumstances. I hope that that will be entirely satisfactory.

Mr. Rooker: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that point? He referred to owner-occupiers. The instruction refers to "occupiers or owners", which implies tenants too.

Sir Reginald Eyre: I accept that point. The amendment would refer to "occupiers or owners".
In connection with instruction 8, all the vantage points around the proposed circuit are municipally owned properties. The council will let the tenants invite such guests as they wish, but full regard must be paid to the structural suitability and stability of the dwellings—for example, potential overloading of balconies — and the implications for other residents in the block. Access to the blocks will be arranged by means of a pass system involving the caretakers in each block. Similar arrangements were successful for the recent on-the-streets event, which also provided an attractive spectacle.
The answer on instruction 9 is also favourable in that as part of the council's existing "Passport to Leisure" scheme, used by 17,000 people, there will be some free and subsidised tickets — perhaps in the form of lottery prizes—for the folk of Birmingham. There is a desire to make specially attractive terms available to the citizens in general.

Mr. Rooker: The vague letter that I received some time ago from the council left me unclear on that point. The letter referred to the existing scheme, which is used by 17,000 people. Instruction 9 refers to the generality of Birmingham ratepayers. It does not refer just to those in receipt of means-tested benefit, whose numbers have trebled since the Government came to power. Instruction 9 does not refer to the scheme operated at present. Is the proposed scheme one in which the generality of ratepayers will be able to participate?

Sir Reginald Eyre: That is a fair point. My view is that the "Passport to Leisure" scheme provides a framework and an administrative arrangement that demonstrates that it is possible to operate schemes of such kind. There has been definite reference to making some benefits available to all citizens, including the ratepayers. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the families of ratepayers, too. They would be included in the lottery, which would be provided for the benefit of Birmingham people in general. I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels that such a proposal would deserve his support.

Mr. Rooker: I am sorry to intervene again; this is the last time that I shall do so. The hon. Gentleman has told us nothing about the proposed price of tickets. I believe that 35,000 people will be expected to pay more than £17 a ticket. One cannot compare that with the price of attending an ordinary event or going to the local park. The other 100,000 people will be expected to pay at least £5 at 1984 prices. The hon. Gentleman has not given those


prices, which would enable us to consider the instruction in the context of the prices that people would be expected to pay to see the race.

Sir Reginald Eyre: The hon. Gentleman mentions prices at the upper end of the likely spectrum — the possible prices for seats in glossy and convenient situations in the stands. There is a range of estimates of the revenue that might be gained through the sale of tickets for a whole day's substantial and attractive entertainment, including items of entertainment suitable for families. However, the hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that ultimately there will be a proper charge for tickets. The lottery will give the people of Birmingham in general a chance of a concessionary ticket.
I wish to quote from a leading article in Motor Sport of March 1985. The article states:
The novelty of road racing would bring a great deal of news media coverage and also attract thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of new spectators who have never before witnessed racing. Mere parades of cars around Birmingham have attracted bigger crowds than the British Grand Prix. If the meeting was a good one then it would surely attract new spectators to regular motor racing. A Birmingham street meeting would be good for the sport.
The arguments for a street race meeting are simple and can be answered in personal terms. Would you stop going to your regular circuit because of a street race in Birmingham? Of course not. Would you like to see road racing in Britain? Of course you would. Would you welcome newcomers to the sport? Of course you would, for we would benefit by increased interest in motor racing. The case for a single annual street race in Birmingham is self-evident and overwhelming.
There was also a leading article in The Times on 29 January 1985, which stated:
Objecting to the bill will spin out proceedings, waste scarce parliamentary time and conceivably doom a measure which merits the support of those on the left who favour municipal self-help and, on the right, advocates of competition and private business regeneration … What matters is that Birmingham, true to tradition, is realizing that prosperity requires the local economy to adapt".
In addition to Miami, Monaco, Detroit, Dallas, Hamilton in Ontario, and several other cities, Wellington in New Zealand has now held its first street car event. Adelaide in Australia is to follow in October, and Rome may well follow next year. British drivers take part in those events, but they have no opportunity to practise or to show their paces at home. I ask the House to give Birmingham a chance to provide the United Kingdom with a spectacle of international appeal.

Mr. Reg Prentice: I wish to speak briefly in opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill. I shall do so along the lines advanced by the Royal Automobile Association in its memorandum to all hon. Members. There were two main points in the RAC memorandum. The first dealt with the general effect of such events upon traffic in big cities. However, in order to be brief, I shall concentrate upon the second point, which concerns the role of the RAC Motor Sports Association.
I declare a constituency interest. My constituency includes the Silverstone circuit. The points put to me by the Silverstone circuit represent the views of people from the purpose-built motor racing circuits in this country. This development will not stop with one race a year in Birmingham. The race may well be a flop. There is a fairly

widespread view among motor racing experts that the estimates of the Birmingham city corporation are hopelessly optimistic. It is one thing to have people turn up to watch a free motorcade. It is another for them to pay the prices suggested by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker).
If it is a flop, that may be the end of the matter. If it succeeds, two developments will follow. The first is that Birmingham will want to promote such races more often. The second is that other cities and possibly rural areas will want to follow suit. Therefore, I suggest that the real debate is whether we want to depart from our traditional position whereby motor racing in Britain has been confined to purpose-built circuits.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I do not think it follows automatically that, just because one race is a success, there will be applications for more. It is not my understanding that, for instance, Monaco asks to run such races two or three times a year, even though the Monaco grand prix has been an established success for a long time.

Mr. Prentice: Yes, but—

Mr. George Park: rose—

Mr. Prentice: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman before dealing with the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight).

Mr. Park: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He has just referred to the traditional way. Is he not aware that motor racing here, as elsewhere, started on street circuits and not on purpose-built circuits such as Silverstone?

Mr. Prentice: I accept that correction, but the development of the sport over many years — and certainly over the years since the second world war — and the success of Britain in the international racing world have been based upon the use of purpose-built tracks.
I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston said about Monaco. Monaco is in a special position. There, we are talking about a grand prix, and Birmingham is not. The grand prix started in Monaco a long time ago for historical reasons. It arose in a small state which had no other room outside its streets on which to build a circuit. There are special circumstances there.
The list of other cities quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre), again, should be looked at with a degree of scepticism. I understand that Rome is not going ahead with its plans. Some of the American cities have had to modify their plans and in other cases have encountered commercial failure. That is what I am told by the RAC.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: rose—

Mr. Prentice: I shall not give way to my hon. Friend. A number of hon. Members want to take part in the debate. There are several points of view on the Bill, and I want to detain the House for only a few moments.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Silverstone is afraid of competition.

Mr. Prentice: I shall come to the argument about competition, but I beg my hon. Friend to listen, just as I shall listen to him if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, which is more likely if the rest of us make short speeches.
The Silverstone case was summarised in a statement issued on behalf of Silverstone Circuits Limited in January. It describes the way in which the permanent circuits have been built up by private investors, both individuals and organisations:
Over many years they have ploughed their resources into purpose built circuits to cater for all the needs of the sport from club race level to Grand Prix. Additionally, the country's permanent circuits actively encourage all aspects of motor racing, helping the beginners, subsidising the enthusiasts events and providing training grounds for drivers, officials and marshals plus facilities for testing racing vehicles which would not be provided by temporary street circuits. The permanent circuits are able to provide the best, safest facilities for competitors and spectators alike. With two circuits in this country licensed to run Grands Prix and others catering for a wide cross section of events, we do not see the need for the law to be changed to permit street racing.
In support of that, I should like to advance a number of arguments, but I confine myself to three of them.
The first and most important argument in this discussion is the one about safety. In their statement circulated to hon. Members, the promoters of the Bill say that there would be safety barriers and a catch fence. I should hope so. Of course, there will be these precautions; it would not be permitted otherwise.
I say in parentheses that I do not argue this case on the ground of constituency chauvinism. I am proud and entitled to be proud that my constituency includes a great national asset such as the Silverstone circuit. But the arguments that I am advancing apply to all the other purpose-built circuits in the country and are designed to benefit the sport.
Looking at the Silverstone circuit vis-a-vis what is proposed in Birmingham, the first difference that one sees is that the track was designed with safety in mind for this kind of racing and not safety for ordinary traffic. The second difference is that the surface of the circuit is composed of a special material, Delugrip, which is designed for safety purposes, and that is not true of the roads of Birmingham. The third difference is that the track at Silverstone is 50 ft. wide. It is that width for general racing purposes, including the safety factor and the room that it provides for manoeuvre.
I remind the House that safety is not a static concept. It is not simply a matter of saying that here are some minimum requirements, such as putting up a fence. Every accident on any of the circuits becomes the subject of an inquiry both at the circuit and by the RAC sub-committee, and every possible lesson is taken into account: should there be a change in the angle of a corner; should this chicane be altered in some way; should there be some extra barrier at a vulnerable point? This is a constructive process going on over the years in which the toll of death and injury in this inevitably dangerous sport has been reduced. I suggest that that is a contribution that cannot be made on street curcuits.

Mr. Denis Howell: rose—

Mr. Prentice: For old times' sake, I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Howell: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that Mr. Robert Langford, the circuit inspector of the RAC who was asked to co-operate by Birmingham and made this feasibility study, concluded by saying:
As a result of this inspection I see no insuperable problem regarding the actual track and feel that it would be possible for

an event for the type of machinery discussed at the meeting to take place, provided always that the work is completed in a satisfactory manner.
In other words, the RAC's chief inspector was satisfied about the safety aspects of this proposed race.

Mr. Prentice: I accept that, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept in turn that the final verdict of the RAC Motor Sports Association is against the project for the reasons that it has put to the House, including the safety factor. In other words, it recognises, as I know from my own conversations, the intangible element by which concepts of safety are growing continually and in which the safety of each of the circuits is revised constantly in the light of experience.
I want also to emphasis the argument about training. Silverstone is the site of the Jim Russell international driving school. A terrific amount of training is done there, not only initial training but more advanced training and the testing of the ability of young drivers to take part in less demanding races and then gradually to work their way into more difficult races such as formula 1 racing. There is a range of events there with enormous scope for training and for the development of the individual driver.
Because of what my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green said about the relationship of this idea to industry in Birmingham, I must emphasise an important third aspect. I respect what my hon. Friend said, but there is nothing unique about it. At Silverstone, there is an industrial estate where at the moment 36 firms are working. Most of them are fairly small, but all of them work on aspects of motor racing, with a permanent track on which they can conduct testing. There is also a great deal of sophisticated machinery there which helps with the testing of their products. There is already this working link between Silverstone and other circuits and the relevant industries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak made a sedentary remark about competition, and I take his point. Most of the time the majority of us would not argue against competition and would say that in most circumstances, whether we were discussing Silverstone or anywhere else, new forms of competition must be accepted.
There are, however, certain provisos. First, the competition should be fair. The road itself and many other facilities for the Birmingham project are paid for by the ratepayers. That is not necessarily fair competition in relation to circuits built by private individuals and organisations.

Mr. Peter Snape: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Prentice: I am very softhearted.

Mr. Snape: And I am very grateful, although I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will no more approve of what I have to say than the right hon. Gentleman will. If that is what he really believes, I look forward to his support in campaigning for better railways, which have to provide their own infrastructure while the road haulage industry takes advantage of facilities provided by other people.

Mr. Prentice: I think that that is straying some way from the subject under debate.
I have considered carefully whether, as a matter of principle, competition should be defended regardless of type. As I have said, in this case the competition is not


equal. Moreover, the permanent circuits plough back into motor sport all the advantages that I have mentioned—training, testing, safety and the rest.
Thirdly, and most important, even if the safety provisions for street racing meet certain minimum standards laid down by an inspector they will never be so stringent and constructive as they are for purpose-built circuits.
In conclusion, if the events in Birmingham are a success they will be copied in other areas, creating a totally new situation. We must ask ourselves whether we want to open the door to that and we should listen carefully to the views of the motor sport industry. I believe that the balance of argument, as summarised in the RAC memorandum, is against giving a Second Reading to the Bill.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: This is not a party issue. It is a matter of what is best for Birmingham. Nevertheless, I was amazed at the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice). By jove, we do change, do we not, depending on what the issue is and whence the wind bloweth? My right hon. Friend wants competition to fail in this instance, but he is afraid that it may succeed. That is a most unusual view for a Conservative, albeit a convert, to take. If the Birmingham project fails, Silverstone and the RAC will be able to say, "We told you so." Throughout its history Birmingham has always tried — and sometimes, though rarely, failed — to put its money, its power and its people behind new ideas. Why should it not be allowed to do this? My right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry has put the case given to him by Silverstone and by the RAC, with its usual lack of enterprise and its wish to be God over the whole of the motor trade. I thank God that the AA exists for those who do not like the RAC's head-in-the-sand attitude.
Conservatives should believe in competition. Birmingham is not asking for a grand prix. In the past few years Birmingham has suffered cruelly from the depression and the problems associated with it. To get over this by ourselves, we built a great national exhibition centre, with some help from the taxpayer and a great deal of help from the ratepayers. If we had taken the attitude of those who oppose this modest investment today, we should never have invested £40 million of ratepayers' money in the exhibition centre. Some say that that money should have been spent on council house repairs. As chairman of finance, I signed the contract on behalf of the city, and that investment by Birmingham ratepayers has brought in hundreds of millions of pounds in prosperity not just for Birmingham but for Solihull, Coventry, Warwick and all the surrounding areas. That is the kind of enterprise that Birmingham is prepared to undertake.
Another £40 million went into the airport. That, too, has brought in hundreds of millions of pounds for the whole area. The amount involved in the project now under discussion is a piffling sum for a great city, but the enterprise, publicity and uplifting of the spirit that it will bring to the city will mean that it will cost the ratepayers nothing. It will show MG, Metro, Jaguar and Talbot, all of which operate in the west midlands, that a further shop window is available through which all can prosper. If

people fear competition from Birmingham, that is good. Birmingham has faced competition throughout the ages and it will have to face it again.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry seemed to think that if the project were a success races would be held in Birmingham every Saturday, but the Bill clearly limits the number of events to one per year held over two days. Will one bank holiday event per year in Birmingham be such a disaster for Silverstone? Is Monaco trembling in its boots? The project will be good for Birmingham and the west midlands. It will show that Birmingham is not a run-down, down-at-heel city.
The publicity for what Birmingham has done and is doing and for the spirit of enterprise of its up-and-going people will be a very good thing. Yet mealy-mouthed conditions are proposed by people who should know better. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) is not here, and I am not surprised. He probably does not even know where Birmingham is — he is too busy with his coal mines, those that are left—but he wants the Bill to founder. He suggests that there should be a clause prohibiting any citizen of South Africa from participating. That proposal bears the names of a number or other hon. Members, but I will not mention them. I do not wish to offend them. I want to get them into the Lobby with us.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: For the hon. Lady, I am willing to do almost anything.

Ms. Short: I do not know about that, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he just going over the top, or is he seriously suggesting that it is dishonourable for a Member of Parliament to suggest that South African sportsmen and sportswomen should not participate in sporting events in Britain?

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: If people are good enough for Silverstone or any other course, they should be good enough for Birmingham. It is unnecessary to lay down special provisions for Birmingham as though it were some kind of laager on its own. What is accepted by the nation should be good enough for Birmingham. It is wrong to put in special clauses.
There is then the advertising of cigarettes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to make his point. However, those instructions have not been selected and there is nothing in the Bill about cigarettes or South Africa. We should not be discussing those matters. Only instructions 7 and 9 have been selected by Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your advice. That is what I would have said had those instructions been chosen.
We recognise that there are those who can talk out this Bill, and that there are some Birmingham Members who wish to do so. I hope that they will let the Bill go through to Committee, as they should do, so that, once again, Birmingham can be given a fair chance. I hope that they recognise that those of us who are in favour of the Bill are concerned not to make a smart move over everybody else, but to help our city forward, to give it a good image and to support the motor industry and the people. I suggest that 93 per cent. of the people cannot be wrong. I should have thought that we could all support the Bill. I hope that this


evening we shall find that, not on the road to Damascus, but on the road to New street, hon. Members who have said that they will vote against the Bill will change their minds and vote in favour of this excellent measure.

8 pm

Mr. Terry Davis: I shall oppose this Bill. I want to make it clear that I am not speaking on behalf of any organisation that has petitioned against the Bill, of any business that has secretly lobbied against it, or of the RAC, Brands Hatch or Silverstone.
The idea of a motor race on the streets of the city of Birmingham is an exciting one, and well worth consideration. When I was first approached about this idea, in a letter from an organisation opposed to it, I replied that I would not be willing to commit myself to oppose something that I had not examined. I was then approached by the city council and replied in similar terms, saying that I wished to have more information before I made up my mind about how I would vote on the Bill.
We have now had a considerable amount of information, and I pay tribute to the patience, care and diligence displayed by councillor Marjorie Brown, who has replied on behalf of the city council to a number of questions that I, and some of my hon. Friends, have put to her. Nevertheless, I am not satisfied that the Bill should receive a Second Reading, and I shall opposite it on three grounds.
First, I am concerned about the financial implications. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) said that the city council wishes to spend £1·5 million, based on an estimate described by the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) as optimistic. I am not making that point; I am prepared to accept the figures laid out by the city treasurer. If the race is held, and the results show that the estimate was optimistic, that will be the time to criticise the figures. In the meantime, I am prepared to accept the figures supplied by the city council.
As the hon. Member for Hall Green pointed out, the city council believes that if it spends £1·5 million it will make a profit of £1 million. A 40 per cent. net profit is a pretty good business operation. Therefore, I am impressed by that argument. I am also impressed that the hon. Member for Hall Green is a convert to municipal enterprise. I am delighted, and I look forward to his support on many other issues in future, when I and my hon. Friends will argue for the city council doing things to make a profit that will benefit the citizens of Birmingham.

Mr. Denis Howell: Why not support the Bill, then?

Mr. Davis: I shall tell my right hon. Friend why. As the hon. Member for Hall Green fairly pointed out, it is not only a question of spending £1·5 million from the revenue account of the city council. The total amount of money to be spent by the city council is £3 million, and the other £1·5 million will be capital expenditure. It is to that I object.
The hon. Member for Hall Green pointed out, again properly and fairly, that capital expenditure by local authorities has been controlled by successive Governments. He could have added, even more fairly, that it has been not only controlled but cut by this Government, and that is the point. The hon. Member for Hall Green says

that £1·5 million is a relatively small sum, which will generate income that will free resources for other services. That is true, but it is equally true that the use of £1·5 million of capital for his project means that £1·5 million cannot be spent in this or any other year on other capital projects needed by the citizens of Birmingham. That is my objection, and it is insurmountable because it has been confirmed by the city treasurer.

Mr. Roger King: The hon. Gentleman will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) spoke about that £1·5 million being spent over two years, so we are talking about £750,000 a year, and not £1·5 million in one year.

Mr. Davis: That may be so, but the city council is so pessimistic about the Bill that it has not budgeted anything to be spent in the year 1985–86. It will have to cut from other programmes if the Bill is passed. The hon. Gentleman's point is valid, but whether the money is spread over one or two years, it will still come out of a capital allocation that has been reduced by the Government and that is tightly controlled. The council will not be able to take the profit and use it for capital expenditure, and I did not see any Tory Members joining me and my hon. Friends in the Lobby when we were protesting about the restriction on the use of capital receipts by the city council of Birmingham.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: We spent over £42 million on the national exhibition centre, so why were people like your good self not against that? We have just spent £35 million on the airport, so why were you not against that? Presumably it is because those projects were going to be, and have been, successful. Why are you against Birmingham making a success—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not intending to involve me.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I beg your pardon, Sir.
Why is the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) against us making another successful investment which will help all the people in Birmingham, particularly the unemployed?

Mr. Davis: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but neither he nor I were here at the time of the debates about the national exhibition centre. We might have agreed about that. I am not opposed to all capital works by the city council. I do not know whether we would have agreed or disagreed on the matter, but it is all in the past. It was at a time before this Government were elected and cut the capital allocation for the city of Birmingham. That is the point. We must now choose our priorities more carefully, and priorities are the language of Socialism, as I was taught to believe.
The hon. Member for Hall Green said that using the money this way would not affect housing repairs, but he withdrew that a little after an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). The hon. Gentleman was wise to do so, because this is a grey area. The city council move the line from year to year. One cannot say what the line between capital and revenue expenditure is, because for housing repairs the mix is changed every year. If the repair is small, it is financed by revenue expenditure. Replacing two slates on a roof is paid for from revenue, but a whole roof conies from capital expenditure. If this plan makes a profit, and


money is available for more council house repairs, it will be available for the small repairs, and the people with the biggest need—those who need whole roofs replaced—will suffer as a result of this choice of priorities. This will not only affect tenants.
The improvement grants for owner-occupiers are also financed from capital expenditure. The hon. Member for Hall Green and several other hon. Members were present at a meeting which I attended, at city council house, a few months ago. The city council representatives complained to us about the inadequate amount of money being made available for improvement grants for owner-occupiers in Birmingham. That was capital expenditure.
There is also the problem of urban renewal, enveloping schemes and the block schemes, matters that we have also discussed with representatives of the city council. These schemes are all financed by capital expenditure. This is the aspect of the city's finances that causes most concern.
Other things also come from capital expenditure. In January, we all had a letter from councillor Knowles, leader of the city council, drawing our attention to the effects of Government cuts in capital expenditure. He complained about the reduction of more than £40 million in one year by the Government in the budget for the city council's capital expenditure. He drew our attention to the programmes that would suffer as a result. This is not my list. It has been prepared by the leader of the city council, with the advice of the city treasurer.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: The leader of the council belongs to the Labour party.

Mr. Davis: In fact, the list came with a covering letter from the leader of the city council, but the list itself was prepared by the city treasurer, who, to the best of my knowledge, is not a member of the Labour party. I am sure that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) will be the first to withdraw any allegation that the city treasurer is playing party politics.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: rose—

Mr. Davis: I do not see how the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) can take part. He is not from Birmingham. I shall give way later.
I want to read the list of things that the city treasurer told us were at risk. I know that Conservative Members do not like it, but, as a result of the Government's cuts in Birmingham city council's capital expenditure, the city treasurer said that next year, for the first time ever, the council would be unable to build any council housing, even for the elderly and disabled. The cuts would mean the decimation — the city treasurer's own word — of the city's essential major housing repair programme. It would wipe out planned preventive maintenance work, putting up to 500 jobs at risk. It would prevent structural repairs to dangerous high-rise blocks, which are fenced off to prevent injury from falling concrete. There will be no funds for improvement grants, including priority grants for the chronically sick and disabled. There will be no money for the replacement of inadequate outside school toilets. That will all be shelved for another year. Essential repair and fire precaution work to homes for the elderly will be dropped. A replacement home for the elderly will not now commence. The programme for the removal of asbestos

from day nurseries is at risk. All those worthwhile and essential projects are at risk as a result of a reduction in the city council's capital expenditure budget. I object to using £1·5 million for a motor race.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that a Member of Parliament for Solihull is as entitled to participate in this debate as an hon. Member for Wolverhampton, West Bromwich or Coventry? The hon. Gentleman has quoted a letter from the Labour leader of the city council, councillor Dick Knowles. Can he say whether he is in favour of this road race?

Mr. Davis: Yes, he is in favour of the road race. I apologise if I implied that the hon. Gentleman should not take part. I am happy to hear his views. It is true that councillor Dick Knowles is strongly in favour of the race and he is entitled to his opinion. I am entitled to point out that in January councillor Dick Knowles sent a letter to every Birmingham Member of Parliament — the hon. Gentleman will not have received that—together with a memorandum.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: I did.

Mr. Davis: That is even more interesting. My hon. Friends from Birmingham and I may have something to say to councillor Knowles when we see him. He is sending out letters to Tory Members who are not from the city of Birmingham. That is incredible. If the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps he will tell the House what he did about it. What I do not think he did was to support Birmingham Members of Parliament in the Division Lobby when we voted against those capital restrictions.
However, three Conservative Members of Parliament for Birmingham share a common problem with me. The hon. Members for Birmingham, Hall Green, for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) all share with me the appalling problem of the Smith houses. We know that the city council has not got the capital allocation to deal with the problem of Smith houses. I will not go to the Brandwood Home Owners Association and tell it that I support the expenditure of £1·5 million on a motor race by a city council that cannot find any money to deal with the problems of owner-occupiers who have been conned into buying defective council houses.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: What does the hon. Gentleman feel about the purported £30 million of receipts from sales which will be available for his party to spend locally on Smith houses and other repairs as well as on the Perry Barr centre for recreational purposes?

Mr. Davis: I am not clear what the hon. Gentleman is referring to but I should be delighted to listen if he makes the point later.
I shall be pleased if the city council can find ways round the restrictions supported by the hon. Gentleman. I want it to spend more capital in Birmingham. My point is that when I go to the Department of the Environment with all-party delegations I do not want the Minister to say that the ground has been cut from under my feet as a representative of Birmingham because the council must have enough money so that it can operate a motor race.
The hon. Member for Hall Green referred to the effect of this project on jobs. He said that the expenditure of £1·5


million would provide jobs. Indeed, the council estimates that it will provide up to 20 jobs. I am told that those jobs would arise for employees of the city council, and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is impressed by that argument. I hope that in future he will support Labour party pleas for more public expenditure because it will create jobs. But jobs would be created, however that money were spent on capital projects. Jobs would be created if the money were used for urban renewal, day nurseries, old people's homes, improvement grants or any of the other items that are at risk according to the city treasurer.
The second reason for my objection to the Bill is the system of apartheid in South Africa. Unlike the hon. Member for Selly Oak, I make no apology for that. I am prepared to do everything that I can within the law to oppose apartheid and to protest against it and the policies of the South African Government on every possible occasion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not stray into instructions which have not been selected for debate.

Mr. Davis: I have no intention of referring to instructions that have not been selected. I was about to reassure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on that point. The hon. Member for Hall Green referred to South Africa. Therefore, I wish to emphasise that that is one reason for my opposition to the Bill. Birmingham is a multiracial city and the proposed route of the motor race runs through a multiracial part of the city. I have made my position clear.
But there is another argument. I understand that the city council wishes to apply for the Olympics to be held in Birmingham in 1992. I wish it well. I shall support that project. I hope that the Government will support that project and I hope that the hon. Member for Selly Oak will come with me to ask the Government to put up the money for it. I am worried about the possibility that that project will be put at risk by South African racing drivers taking part in this proposed motor race.
I look forward to hearing my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) on that point. He has tremendous expertise and I shall bow to his opinions. If he tells me that there will be no risk to the Olympics from a South African racing driver taking part in the race or a racing driver from any other country taking part—that is a racing driver who has been put on the United Nations register of drivers who have taken part in sport in South Africa and who should therefore not be included in events elsewhere — I shall accept his assurance.
However, for the city council the position is confused. I raised the point with the city council, and it said in a long letter that it was unlikely that South African drivers will enter. Another letter to Members of Parliament for Birmingham explained that the Gleneagles agreement did not apply to professional motor racing drivers. A third letter arrived today from the chairman of the general purposes committee explaining that there was a mistake in a previous letter and that the Gleneagles agreement does apply to motor racing. I do not know where the city council stands on the issue, but I do know where I stand. The Gleneagles agreement says that any Government subscribing to it should

combat the evil of apartheid by withholding any form of support for, and by taking every practical step to discourage contact or competition by their nationals with sporting organisations, teams or sportsmen from South Africa".
I discussed that with the anti-apartheid movement which told me that it hopes that Birmingham city council will ensure that no South African racing drivers take part in the race. It drew my attention to a much stronger declaration on southern Africa which has been adopted by several other local councils. It includes the provision that the council will:
Seek to enforce the United Nations sporting and cultural boycott by withholding use of leisure facilities from any event involving participants coming from South Africa and Namibia, and from others who appear on the United Nations sporting and cultural registers.
If the city council had given me an assurance that it would apply that policy on organising the motor race, I should have accepted it. I am not asking the council to amend the Bill. We are not discussing the instruction this evening. If the leader of Birmingham city council will give me his assurance that no South African racing driver will take part in the race, I shall accept his word. I am disappointed that we have not had such an assurance.
I have strong feelings about apartheid and racial discrimination and I shall fight that discrimination at every opportunity. So will my hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his kindness in acknowledging my involvement in this problem over many years; I refused permission for a South African cricket team to come here.
The Labour Government were not opposed to South Africans as people; nor are the present Government. We are opposed to apartheid, and that has been the basis of our legislation and of the Gleneagles agreement. I agree that the council got that agreement wrong in the first instance and I am glad that it has been put right. Under the Gleneagles agreement it would be inconceivable that any official representative of South Africa should come here and I am sure that I can say on behalf of the city council that it would uphold the Gleneagles agreement as created by the Labour Government and sustained by the present Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am finding it a little difficult to relate these remarks to the Bill. I remind the House that this is a short debate. I hope that we can stick to the Bill.

Mr. Davis: I am prepared to leave the subject. I accept what my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath says. He is convinced that the city council will ensure that the Gleneagles agreement is honoured. I have never suspected otherwise, but I want it to go much further. I wish to ensure that no South African racing driver takes part in the motor race. Unless I get an assurance that that is the policy of the city council, I shall vote against the Bill.
My third objection concerns the advertising of cigarettes. The health authorities in Birmingham and the west midlands have a good record in campaigning against—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he seems to be coming to another instruction that has not been selected for debate. I am sure that he will be able to relate his remarks to arguments for or against the Bill.

Mr. Davis: I must point out to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I had no intention of using the word instruction or of debating an instruction that you had not selected. However, the hon. Member for Hall Green mentioned tobacco advertising. I wish to reply to him, but if you feel that I should not do so, I shall leave it there. I do not wish to argue with the Chair.
I am not satisfied by what I have been told by the city council or by what I have heard from the hon. Member for Hall Green. Therefore, I shall oppose the Bill on those grounds.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): It may be helpful if I intervene now to give a brief indication of the Government's view of the Bill.
We are considering an unusual private Bill. It proposes, for the first time, a city centre motor race. Naturally, we are inclined to regard that with enthusiasm, because it is an exciting idea, and with caution, because it is new and safety is involved.
As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath, (Mr. Howell) will verify, the Government are traditionally neutral in these matters, because no major matter of principle is involved. Today will be no exception. This is primarily a local matter and we do not oppose the principle of the Bill.
However, I should tell the House that last week I met the chairman of the RAC, the chairman of the general purposes committee of Birmingham city council and her Conservative opposite number to check out their views. I see the council's proposal as an enthusiastic, fun proposal — some might call it brash — and it is certainly ambitious. That is just like the average Brummie.
Against that background, I have to conclude whether the concept of a city centre motor race constitutes a precedent which would have adverse effects on national sporting interests. My Department, the Department of the Environment and the Home Office have all been involved in discussions with Birmingham city council since the proposal came forward. We have sought assurances from the promoters of the Bill about the construction of the circuit, the limited number of days per year on which racing would be permitted and the type of racing allowed.
The Bill's provisions are restrictive. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) said, racing will take place on only one day a year—a bank holiday—with the previous day as a practice day. The circuit is essentially city streets — modified marginally — and there will be no grand prix type racing. I have seen the circuit from tall buildings in Birmingham and the ground on which stands would be erected.
The other duty of the Government is to oversee general matters of national concern. I include the effects of strategic traffic flows, pedestrian safety, access to property for people and vehicles, noise and pollution and planning and environmental matters, including advertising. The Bill includes clauses relevant to all those matters, and officials of my Department, of the Department of the Environment and of the Home Office have discussed the details with the promoters and several amendments have been incorporated in the Bill by the promoters to meet our

requirements. We are grateful to the promoters for their positive attitude in achieving amendments which are in the general interest.
We are satisfied that strategic traffic flows will not be impeded by the proposals. The road network in the area allows good alternative routes to be provided, and motorists should not be substantially inconvenienced by the event. I understand that the local highway authority, the West Midlands county council, is also content.
However, I stress, as I have stressed to the chairman of Birmingham's general purposes committee, Mrs. Marjorie Brown, the importance, both before and after the event, of sound traffic management to minimise the disruption to traffic. I know that the promoters are well aware of the need for that, and on Friday I received from the chairman of the general purposes committee an assurance that if amendments were necessary she would be happy to discuss them with my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green so that he could put them to the House if the Bill is given a Second Reading. Birmingham city council is obviously prepared to consider amendments.
We have been particularly keen to ensure that public safety is fully considered by those planning the motor race and that all reasonable measures appropriate to the Bill are included. We are satisfied that the type of barriers proposed for the circuit are suitable for the protection of spectators and that arrangements for the opening and closing of streets to be used for racing will not adversely affect the safety of pedestrians.
The promoters of the Bill have gone to some lengths to satisfy Government Departments about access for residents and visitors to properties alongside the circuit. It is inevitable that such an event will cause some inconvenience, but basic rights of access must be protected. Access for emergency vehicles is also vital and must be maintained. I hope that Birmingham city council will keep access and safety in mind in all the arrangements, if it is permitted to go ahead with the race.
The Bill provides a framework, but much will depend on the spirit of the enterprise and how the measures are carried through.

Ms. Clare Short: I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the point made by the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice), who said that the surface of a motor racing track is different from the surface of a city street and that it would be more dangerous to race on a street.

Mrs. Chalker: There is a difference between the sort of racing that takes place at Silverstone and that envisaged for Birmingham city centre. Delugrip is used on a number of road surfaces, and not exclusively on motor racing circuits. I would have to take advice on the matter, because I do not know the exact sort of surfacing material that is used on that sector in Birmingham. From what Birmingham city council has said, I know that if my officials from the Transport and Road Research Laboratory were not satisfied or if the council was concerned, measures would have to be taken until they were satisfied about the skid resistance of the surface. However, the surface may not need to be the same as that used on the professional circuits, such as at Brands Hatch, because there will not be any formula 1 racing.
The city council has other important duties to perform towards the environment. It must protect its residents from


noise and pollution, as well as protecting the physical environment. We have received assurances from the city's representatives that noise and disturbance will be minimised, and the contracts let for the erection of barriers will specifically contain a clause to that effect.
I understand that the city has canvassed the opinion of local residents on the race and maintains that the very great majority are in favour. That weighs very heavily. We have also, however, sought assurances that provision will be made for those who do not wish to be in close proximity to a noisy motor race on a bank holiday, such as the frail and the elderly, to leave the area for the day at the expense of the race promoters.

Mr. Fry: My hon. Friend has made a very pertinent point. If the Bill is enacted and we have to rely purely on assurances, the House will not have an opportunity to build in the guarantees that some of us might like to have. Should not the Bill's promoters accept that, before any racing takes place, specific approval should first be obtained from the Department of Transport, and perhaps the local authority, the police and even the RAC, as the licensing authority for motor racing? We would then have more faith in assurances. If the Bill is enacted in its present form, we shall have to rely entirely on Birmingham city council.

Mrs. Chalker: It is not for me to answer for the promoters of the Bill. However, I distinctly heard my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green say that arrangements would he made for all safety measures in a code of practice. From the information that has been given to me, I know that if it were desirable to make such amendments to the Bill, the promoters would ask for them to be made. If the Bill is given a Second Reading tonight, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) can consult my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green and put forward any ideas so that they can be considered further.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My hon. Friend has made an important point — [Interruption.] — which I should like to pursue, as some of us may not have an opportunity to speak in the debate. Is my hon. Friend asking us to give the Bill a Second Reading on the promise of a code of practice? Is she saying that that would satisfy the Government? What would be the Government's view if the RAC, which is the equivalent of the Jockey Club and is appointed by the Government to see that the rules are observed, decided that the rules and assurances were insufficient? Would the Government then stand by?

Mrs. Chalker: As I have said, it is for the promoters, not the Government, to ask hon. Members to support the Bill. From all the information given to us, I understand that Birmingham city council is prepared—I shall come to this point later — to meet the requirements of the RAC, whose chairman I met last week, in every way that it would seem to desire on certain points. Therefore, Birmingham city council and the RAC are now coming together, although that might not have been evident a week or so ago when some hon. Members were briefed by the respective parties.

Mr. Denis Howell: I should like to point out, in reply to the interventions that have been made, that Birmingham does not renege on its undertakings. It never has done so. Birmingham is a great city. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) and I were present

at the meeting when the RAC was invited to run and supervise the race and to ensure that all the safety requirements were met. I am sure that I can now repeat that assurance on behalf of Birmingham.

Mrs. Chalker: I am delighted to hear that, as it clears the air.
I understand that officials from the Department of the Environment have been in discussion with Birmingham city council about the display of advertisements and that a suitable revision of the provisions in clause 15 will be suggested if the Bill receives a Second Reading. I understand that it would remove, as far as practicable, the possibility of duplicate control with the general advertisement control regime under the town and country planning Acts. There is no apparent reason why this difficulty should not sensibly be resolved by the discussions.
It would not be reasonable for the net expense, if any, of this local project to fall on the public purse. We have therefore sought details from Birmingham city council on the expected expenditure and income associated with the race. We have stated that we expect the project to be self-financing, and we accept that the estimates provided by the city council demonstrated that that is feasible. Within those estimates, we were anxious to see that adequate provision was made for compensation for those wile could be adversely affected on occasion by the race — for example, through any damage to property. I understand that that has been covered.
In response to interventions, I have already mentioned the comments of the chairman of the RAC. I know that the RAC has been writing to hon. Members malting observations for the debate. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Birmingham city council not only wants to work with the RAC but is fully prepared to do so. It will also undertake those safety measures considered necessary, whether by the RAC or by the Department, should we have any difference of opinion, which I believe is not the case at present.
The Government wish to encourage initiative and competition. Since we have received assurances several times, and the RAC has not petitioned against the Bill, I believe that the concern to ensure that the road race is a safe and good venture for Birmingham city council can be satisfied. I understand that the RAC, which looks after the 14 circuits in this country, may be a little concerned about competition. But one road race one day a year in Birmingham and the sort of event that I would gladly visit the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) to see are two very different things.
That should be kept in the forefront of our minds. All the matters that have been raised in relation to the Bill are important. The Government have taken steps to ensure that they have been fully considered and that the best possible arrangements are made. We are content that the promoters of the Bill have their responsibilities fully in mind, and that, with good will, there need be no serious impediment to its implementation. We would, of course, wish to reserve our position about reporting to Parliament should any points of detail remain unresolved between the promoters and Government Departments.
Birmingham is often described as the home of the motor car. Last night I was in a neighbouring home of the motor car, Coventry. It seems appropriate that Birmingham


should promote its name through a motor race in the city streets. Birmingham may not have the palm trees of Monaco—

Mr. Pawsey: Why not?

Mrs. Chalker: I have not examined the trees of Monaco or the soil of Birmingham. But Birmingham is a city with many qualities. The council and all parties on it have worked in a vigorous and innovative way. We may not always agree with everything that they do, but they choose to market their very strong attributes through this Bill.
I know that the city council sees the proposals for motor racing in the city as one ingredient in its positive programme for creating an attractive environment in which regeneration and expansion of Birmingham's commercial base can take place. The Bill is an exciting local initiative, and it is certainly not one that I would wish to frustrate. I therefore hope that the House will feel able to give it a Second Reading and allow it to proceed in the usual way to Committee, where all its provisions and all the reservations expressed in the House tonight can be considered in greater detail.

Mr. Peter Snape: Like the Minister, the Opposition have no wish to put forward an official view about the Bill. Each hon. Member must make his own decision. Given the passions that the Bill has already aroused, it would be foolhardy of me, as an exile from Cheshire representing a black country constituency, to spend too much time in this very hot bath water.
Having made some fairly unwise, and I thought private, remarks some weeks ago about the centre of Birmingham which I have no intention of repeating tonight, I must say that I have found the debate fascinating. I was impressed, as I always am, by the cool, calm and comprehensive way in which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) presented the Bill. I was a little surprised to hear him refer to the Bill as a glittering example of municipal enterprise with such apparent approval. When the last Labour Government tried to allow some municipal enterprise in the direct works department in Birmingham, the right hon. Gentleman was among the most vociferous critics. It appears that on the subject of motor racing he is pleased to see some municipal enterprise.

Mr. Rooker: There are more examples than that quoted by my hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) and other Conservative Members voted against this proposal when it was previously before the House. Surely it was a municipal enterprise then. They appear to have changed their tune.

Mr. Snape: No doubt the reasons for changing their tune will become apparent as the debate continues. When it comes to tune changing, there can be no better pianist than the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice).

Mr. David Ashby: rose—

Mr. Snape: I shall not give way because the hon. Gentleman joined the debate only five minutes ago. If he wants to play the piano, he should be here for the full orchestral concert and not come in halfway through.
The right hon. Member for Daventry gave us a fascinating exposition of modern-day Toryism on the subject of competition. Once again, it appears that competition is a very good thing—but, O Lord, not in my constituency. The right hon. Gentleman has the Silverstone course in his constituency and defended the vested interest very well. That should be regarded as a compliment on the fulfilment of his constituency duties. But how strange for a Conservative—albeit a new found one — to say that if the project succeeds Birmingham will want to repeat it more frequently. That is a fine example of the Tory policy on competition, is it not? Presumably the right hon. Gentleman's version of competition is that it must be not too often and unsuccessful. I must confess that under the Government of whom he is now a supporter private enterprise has not done particularly well, whether in Birmingham or elsewhere. But it is still a surprising view to espouse as publicly as he has done tonight.

Mr. Prentice: The case that I was trying to advance — to which neither the hon. Gentleman nor my hon. Friend the Minister have addressed themselves—is that British motor sport has attained very high standards in the international world. The foundation of that is all the work, investment and training in special purpose circuits. If we interfere with that and open the floodgates to a different sort of competition, we may dilute that quality and do great damage to the sport.

Mr. Snape: The Minister dealt in some detail with the question of safety. The more detailed points that she and other hon. Members have mentioned show that these matters can be dealt with more adequately in Committee than in the House. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman is a great admirer of the Royal Automobile Club. I do not accuse him of delivering a brief from that organisation, but it had certainly been in contact with him before he expressed his views tonight. It is surprising, if not positively poignant, to think that just over a decade or so ago I used to listen to the right hon. Gentleman in this House and outside advocating more fullblooded Socialism. That was in the early 1970s. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is not anxious to be reminded of that. Tonight he is espousing the views of those pillars of Socialism, the stewards of the RAC — people like Sir Carl Aarvold and the Duke of Richmond and Gordon. Ten years is a very short time in politics, to misquote someone else, but to find the right hon. Gentleman firmly in the camp of that organisation comes as something of a surprise.
One hon. Member mentioned the similarity between the RAC and the Jockey Club. A third organisation could be included—the Politburo. None of them is elected on a democratic basis. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have seen fit to defend what I regard as the brief from the RAC, and I find that as pretentious and misleading as most of the propaganda that emanates from that organisation. If anything was guaranteed to get Members from the Opposition Benches into the Lobby to support the Bill, it is that appalling and arrogant letter from the RAC.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The hon. Gentleman can have his fun, but whether or not he likes the RAC it stands as the authority that controls motor racing in this country—

Mrs. Chalker: Long may it continue.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend. It has discharged that function with national and international distinction. Our record on safety and standards is second to none. Therefore, it has the same standing as the Jockey Club. Whether or not their members are elected is beside the point. Both the Jockey Club and the RAC have a duty that we do not want to usurp, which is to ensure that the standard of racing in their respective spheres is as high as it can be, and they deserve our approbation.

Mr. Snape: I am sure that the House and the RAC will be grateful for that impassioned defence. I dismiss the Jockey Club, but say in passing that we all know that the self-styled sport of kings is corruption free and that every nag that canters round a course does so in perfect fairness — and the Jockey Club never ceases to assure us that that is so.
On the question of the RAC, I can only suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads yesterday's Sunday People. The RAC has a committee that is responsible for speedway. I would not have thought that the Duke of Richmond and Gordon, the right hon. Lord Shawcross, Squadron Leader John Crampton or Sir Carl Aarvold were members of that committee, but according to the Sunday People they saw fit to dismiss some very detailed bribery allegations. Perhaps those self-perpetuating, if not self-appointing, organisations should be the subject of an inquiry by this House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) gave three reasons why the Bill should be opposed. Two of them were mentioned by the hon. Member for Hall Green. Like my hon. Friend, I represent a multi-racial constituency, and my abhorrence of apartheid is as great as his. Indeed, an abhorrence of apartheid unites all on these Benches, and I hope that the same can be said of many Conservative Members. My hon. Friend spoke of cigarette advertising. As a reformed smoker, perhaps I had better not say much on that subject. I know how easy it is to lapse after one has enjoyed such a sin.
The main point with which my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill was concerned was the financial implications of the expenditure under the Bill, and he said that £3 million, rather than £1·5 million, would appear to be involved on the project. As he put it, that money could be spent on other projects.
Understandably, he dealt passionately with the £40 million cuts in public expenditure that the Conservatives had undertaken since coming to power and he detailed other areas of priority where he would rather see public money spent than on a motor race. I appreciate my hon. Friend's view, but he did not say whether, if the project did not go ahead, all those other desirable priorities would benefit.
About £1·5 million would not go a great way to solving the problems, for example, of urban renewal, old people's housing and housing repairs generally in a city the size of Birmingham. My hon. Friend's point in that respect was not particularly valid, therefore, on that aspect of the Bill.

Mr. Terry Davis: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not wish to misrepresent me. He may not have understood me when I said that the £3 million was the total cost, of which £1·5 million was revenue expenditure and £1·5 million capital expenditure. I was referring specifically to the capital expenditure, which could not be replaced.
When he refers to Government cuts in public expenditure of £40 million, that is a £40 million cut in capital expenditure this year, not since the Conservatives were elected. I was not suggesting that £1·5 million would cure all the problems and pay for all the projects listed by the city treasurer. It would, however, make a contribution.

Mr. Snape: I apologise to my hon. Friend for my getting the figure wrong. He said earlier that Socialism was the language of priorities, and I agree. Surely the priorities are better decided by those elected to make the decisions, the members of the city council.

Mr. Rooker: It is for us to decide tonight.

Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend says that it is up to us tonight. For the last four months—though it has seemed much longer — I have been involved in the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill. From the Labour Benches we have argued day after day for greater autonomy for local government and have attacked the Conservatives for interfering with the expenditure priorities of local authorities. Is it not incongruous to argue the reverse tonight and say that we are better qualified to decide how £1·5 million should be spent?

Ms. Clare Short: What are we doing here?

Mr. Snape: We are here to give approval or otherwise to the Bill. The detailed arguments, however, should be conducted in Committee.

Ms. Short: What is our function tonight?

Mr. Snape: I will gladly give way to my hon. Friend, if she wishes to intervene. If, however, she keeps shouting into my right ear, I shall have difficulty trying to speak to the subject and trying to hear what she is saying.

Ms. Short: First a minor point: I was shouting into my hon. Friend's left ear. Given that Birmingham must seek approval from the House for the Bill, it is our duty seriously to consider the measure to see whether it would benefit the people of Birmingham. We believe in local government. That is why it is our task to consider whether it will benefit the people of Birmingham.

Mr. Snape: I accept my hon. Friend's geographical correction in that she was shouting into my left ear. It is not just a question of deciding priorities on behalf of the city of Birmingham. I appreciate that my hon. Friend represents a Birmingham constituency whereas I do not, but I must remind her that the city council voted 90 to 13 in favour of the Bill. That was a substantial majority, and a vote of that magnitude means that the great majority of members of the Labour party there voted for the measure.
It is consistent for us to argue — as hon. Members who have served for any time in local government do argue—that there is too much interference from this House and from Whitehall as a whole in the decisions of local government—

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Hear, hear.

Mr. Snape: I am grateful for that comment of assent from the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson


Smith). I hope that I can rely on his support in the Lobby when the Conservatives decide to abolish democracy locally.
The fact that the decision was made by such a majority on Birmingham city council shows the depth of feeling in the city in favour of the scheme. While I accept, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill adduced his argument with his customary sincerity and diligence, I suggest that those points can be more fully debated in Committee. I would not dream of making any recommendations on the issue.

Ms. Clare Short: My hon. Friend is doing precisely that.

Mr. Snape: I have expressed my own view, which is all that it is proper for me to do on a Bill such as this. I shall be voting for the measure tonight because I believe that Dick Knowles and his colleagues on the city council know what is best for Birmingham. Members of the Labour party who believe in local government democracy should support locally elected councillors when they reach a decision in the way that Birmingham has reached this decision.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I listened carefully to the arguments that have been deployed tonight on both sides. In particular, I was persuaded by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre).
I listened with reassurance to the Minister of State when she said that note had been taken of the views of Birmingham, that discussions had been held, that dilligent consideration had been given to the question of safety, that the Bill would contain provisions in relation to safety and that undertakings on the subject would be given.
A spokesman for the Royal Automobile Club was reported today to have said that if the Bill was given a Second Reading, as I trust it will, the RAC would change its view and discuss the matter. That, in my view, would be an appropriate course for the RAC to take. The members of Birmingham city council did not take a sudden decision. I was a member of the council about 12 years ago and I met some today who were also members of the council at that time or who were in the gallery of the chamber when the issue was debated and the proposal was narrowly defeated. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) was right to emphasise the vote in Birmingham's council chamber. It should be stressed that 90 were in favour of the Bill and 13 opposed it, with only five abstentions. Let us all remember, whether we represent Yardley, Erdington, Perry Barr or Hodge Hill, that 93 per cent. of the Brummies living in these constituencies have expressed themselves in favour of the Bill.

Ms. Clare Short: That is not right.

Mr. Bevan: When their opinion has been tested, 93 per cent. have expressed themselves in favour of the proposition.
Many misconceptions have been expressed this evening. One of them came from my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice). It is obvious that he has not seen the roads that will be used. I have walked

along them all my life and I know that they are different now from when I walked along them as a boy. They are broad, redeveloped roads. I hazard a guess that those that will provide about eight tenths or nine tenths of the circuit are at least 150 ft wide, about three times the width of the track which forms the Silverstone circuit.
The route of the race has been discussed for 12 years. Various routes have been disregarded and now the favoured course has been adopted. I have driven over it, and I was driven over it on the day of the rehearsal of the race. I do not recall seeing any of my right hon. and hon. Friends on that occasion, nor did I see any Labour Members, although I concede that they may have been there. However, I recall that there were about 250,000 citizens of Birmingham around the natural amphitheatre which slopes down to Bristol road and Belgrave road, or Middleway as it is now called, into Sherlock street. I recall that the occasion provided entertainment and an attraction for people of all ages. It was heralded by contributions from people of all ethnic origins. The race stimulated great support and was an undoubted success. It would be wrong if we failed to support the proposal in the way that we should.

Ms. Short: rose—

Mr. Bevan: The race is wanted by the Brummies. It has been fought for over a long period. The police invigilated when the race was run and there was not one complaint from them, and there has not been one petition against the Bill.

Ms. Short: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House. It is right to remind the House that the race to which he refers was a free event for those who wanted to watch it. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that about 30 per cent. of those living in the inner area of Birmingham are registered as unemployed. The number who would be able to buy expensive tickets for a road race would be rather different.

Mr. Bevan: Of course, any unemployment is regrettable. However, 90 per cent. or more of those who live around the area of the circuit, unemployed or not, have expressed themselves in favour of the race.

Ms. Short: That is a different point.

Mr. Rooker: Things have moved on since then.

Mr. Bevan: We have moved on over 12 years.
The race will contribute to the quality of life and to the take-up of employment in Birmingham by producing over 600 part-time jobs and 20 or more full-time jobs. It will generate a profit for Birmingham.

Ms. Short: Maybe.

Mr. Bevan: Despite the remarks that are being made by hon. Members from sedentary positions, we are debating a car race in Birmingham. We are not talking about housing or racism. The race has been asked for by the public. I was gratified when I heard my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport say that it should be supported by us all whatever the RAC's attitude, which I think will change quickly after we in the House rally to the support of the race.
My tie has on it the call sign of Birmingham international airport. I hope that the call sign to support another race will be supported by all hon. Members and that a chance will be given to the city that produced


Herbert Austin, who started to make motor cars in the back streets of Birmingham and subsequently became an honoured Member of the House. I hope that note will be taken of Birmingham's association with the car trade and that Birmingham will become the first city to have its own on-the-street car race.

Mr. Denis Howell: The Bill will give Birmingham city council the right to provide a road race for as long as the legislation is operational. My hon. Friends have said that, because some terrible difficulties arise from the Government's policies — I agree — the decision should be rejected on principle. That is a most unattractive argument. We should vote on the principle of road racing. The immediate capital restrictions applying to Birmingham are a matter for proper debate by Birmingham city council. I should have hoped that the arguments in this Chamber would be more elevated than those that we have heard from some quarters.
Birmingham is a large and imaginative city, and this proposal must be seen in that context. Do we want Birmingham to be known, promoted and advertised around the world as an international city? I believe that we do. No one can gainsay the fact that if Birmingham is the only city in Britain to have a motor race, the advertising and promotion that Birmingham will get will be out of all proportion to this puny investment that seems to have bogged everyone down. There is no way that Birmingham could buy for £3 million the amount of international coverage that this race would give to it. My hon. Friends should think about that important aspect. How can we attract jobs and investment to the city unless we show that we are a 20th century city moving into the 21st century, capable of fulfilling our heritage and acting in accordance with the other great decisions that Birmingham has taken over many years?
Hon. Members have referred to the Birmingham international exhibition centre. I have to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) that I was very much involved in that decision. I went to see the then Prime Minister, who is now Lord Wilson, to urge him to ensure that the centre would come to Birmingham and to argue that everything should not be in London. Birmingham got the international exhibition centre.

Mr. Robin Corbett: The national exhibition centre.

Mr. Howell: It is really an international centre. It has proved to be an outstanding success.
This race must be seen in that context. The developments at Birmingham international airport are in the same league of international thinking as this proposal. The proposal to set up an international convention centre has all-party support from people who are big enough to think big on behalf of Birmingham. Most of us expect that proposal to go forward, and we hope to receive EC funds for it. It will include a new concert hall for the internationally renowned city of Birmingham symphony orchestra, one of the most important orchestras in the country at the moment. This is what Birmingham is doing now. It is not sitting down accepting the fate that some

people have mapped out for it. We should be singing Birmingham's praises loud and clear and saying that that is Birmingham's international significance.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is aware, another decision was taken in Birmingham this week, in which I have been involved. All parties decided that the city would put into my hon. Friend's constituency the one and only international indoor stadium in this country. If the argument that we must not spend a penny on anything except housing is to be sustained, my hon. Friend will not be supporting that project, but I support it. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend does not want to intervene, but he is arguing that the number one priority must be housing—unless he wants to discriminate against one sport and another. The logic of his argument is that if Birmingham wants international sporting facilities it should have them, but that all resources should go into desperately needed housing. There is no dispute about that. He must, therefore, ipso facto, be against the indoor athletic stadium as well as the motor circuit. That is the logic of the case, and I do not want to stand logic on its head.

Ms. Clare Short: If my right hon. Friend takes his logic too far we shall spend all Birmingham's money on sport and nothing on housing.

Mr. Howell: Given the present depression in Birmingham, that might not be a bad thing. However, I am not going that far with my argument.
I should hate my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill to be left out of this great assembly. I think he knows that the leisure resources committee which is talking about the motor race and the indoor athletic stadium is thinking of putting a major international swimming pool at the junction of his constituency and mine.

Mr. Terry Davis: It has not told me.

Mr. Howell: If the committee has not told him, perhaps I can, and he will be the first to welcome it.

Mr. Corbett: And the last to know.

Mr. Howell: Yes, but we are dealing with principles.

Mr. Terry Davis: What I do know, and my right hon. Friend knows perfectly well, is that the council is considering whether it can find money for urban renewal in his constituency and mine.

Mr. Howell: I do not know whether the leisure resources committee is finding money for urban renewal.

Mr. Terry Davis: The general purposes committee is.

Mr. Howell: I was talking about the leisure resources committee.
The second argument in favour of the Bill is the financial one. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Perr,y Barr I do not think that it is a scandal to spend money on this proposal. Although I fully accept what he says about the need to spend money on housing and the priority that it should have — I fully endorse his condemnation of the Government in that respect — I completely reject the argument that until we have cured all the social ills in our society we should do no social good. That is a misconceived argument, and we have to be careful where it takes us. In essence, it is a philistine argument, because it takes us to the proposition that we should stop spending any money on the arts, on sport or on the heritage of our city.
There has been some reference to Socialism as being the language of priorities. As we know, that came from Aneurin Bevan. [Interruption.] Yes, I was brought up on that, but I was also brought up on the passionate belief that Socialism is not really about economic circumstances; it is about warmth, colour and excitement in the lives of ordinary citizens. That is what the early Socialists believed, and that is what I believe. That is why I passionately believe that the quality of life in a city such as Birmingham is a matter of great importance. I do not believe that we enhance the quality of life of our citizens by using economic arguments against having any excitement, colour or warmth in their lives. I hope that my hon. Friends will understand that.
There is also what has come to be known as the municipal enterprise argument. I embrace that terminology for the purpose of the debate, although I prefer the term municipal Socialism. From the early Socialists — and from the Chamberlains — we had the concept of municipal activity. The gas, water and electricity services, and the municipal banks, were all examples of municipal Socialism. My hon. Friends, had they been alive in those days, would have embraced them. Therefore, I cannot see what is the argument against a municipal enterprise such as a road race.
I also embrace the argument about local democracy. Last week, we attacked the Government for saying that Whitehall knows best. When the Government proposed to abolish the metropolitan counties and the GLC and to set up joint boards, the Opposition said that it was wrong in principle to say that Whitehall knows best. Having said that, we cannot reverse the argument tonight and say that Parliament knows what is best for Birmingham. Even if I did not agree with the proposed motor circuit—even if I were passionately opposed to it — I would hold strongly that the Birmingham city council and the Birmingham people have the right to decide the matter for themselves. Therefore, I do not think that there are any merits in the objections to the Bill.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) got his figures wrong. I do not think that 90 per cent. of the people approved the proposal. But there was a referendum, carried out by the Birmingham city council of all the residents living in the vicinity of the proposed road race. There were 4,520 ballot papers issued through the post office, because Birmingham city council was determined to get the views of the people. In view of the turnout at local elections and the usual participation in referendums, it was staggering that 36 per cent. of the people who were polled returned their ballot papers. They produced a majority of 4½ to 1 in favour — 1,290 in favour and 283 against.

Mr. Ashby: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what percentage of the people living in the area were represented in that poll?

Mr. Howell: All of them. I made it clear that that ballot was conducted at the residences of all the people — every person living in that vicinity was polled — [Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's point is. I made it clear that Birmingham city council polled every resident in that area. I have given the figures—there was a 36 per cent. response and a majority of 4½ to 1 was in favour.
Therefore, on the grounds of the constitutional principle, practicality and the fact that the race, if it makes a profit, can provide money to be invested in the very things that my hon. Friends and I want, Birmingham should succeed.
That leaves us with one other objection, which comes from the RAC. Some of my hon. Friends and I are much concerned about the behaviour of the RAC in this matter. I would be less than frank if I did not say this to the House. The RAC co-operated with Birmingham. Its specialists were sent to Birmingham to co-operate with the city, and they advised the city that the road race was practicable, that the safety provisions would be adequate and that it should be approved. I do not know whether the RAC is an example of double standards, but, to our amazement, suddenly in January this year the RAC produced a new safety regulation after Birmingham had deposited the Bill with the House. That is not the standard of conduct that one comes to expect from such an organisation, which is not democratic in its make-up, but we all understand the difficulties in that area.

Mr. Corbett: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me in saying that the best response of RAC members in Birmingham and the west midlands would be to tear up their membership cards and join the Automobile Association, which is in favour of the race?

Mr. Howell: I would be precluded from giving that advice because all the staff of the AA belong to the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staff, with which I have been associated for a long time.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has come to this point because there has been some confusion about what the position of the RAC has been. What is the regulation that has been changed?

Mr. Howell: It is regulation D2.2.5 of January this year, which did not exist before. The object of the regulation is that there should be no racing on temporary circuits.
I shall not go through the lengthy dissertation that we received from the RAC except to deal with item 4, which states that the RAC
cannot accept that the decision of Parliament should be influenced solely by the views of the Birmingham City Council".
That puts the point crudely, but I should like to make the reverse point. When we met representatives of the RAC, we said that if the House of Commons approves the Bill in principle, which gives permission to close roads for two days a year, it is a decision of principle that is for Parliament but not for the RAC. We had to make that point strongly because the RAC itself was saying that it would wear both its hats. This is the difficulty that it has got itself into. On the one hand, the RAC is a motoring organisation and on the other hand it is the governing body of motor sport. The RAC as a motoring organisation can properly object to the Bill, but if Parliament passes the measure we object to the RAC putting on its other hat and saying that it will use other powers in another guise to frustrate the motor race.
That would be most improper. I warn the RAC against persisting with that line. I note that Birmingham's response is that that would be a restraint on trade, and that an action would be brought in the courts at once. Furthermore, if the RAC sought to do that, it would be


placing itself in a monopolist position which would require investigation by the Office of Fair Trading. That is not the first time that that point has been made. The hon. Gentleman and I both made it when we visited the headquarters of the RAC. I am sorry that the RAC has not responded to that point.
However hard pressed the citizens of Birmingham may be, they wish their city council to give a lead, to put the city on the international map, to create excitement and to give us something to be proud of. Civic pride is important to Birmingham. Many Birmingham citizens will gain a lot of pleasure from the motor race. Thousands of them will see it for nothing. One cannot black out miles of road. People will enjoy the spectacle from the windows of their flats. It will be a festive occasion, and a good investment for Birmingham in terms of jobs and the promotion of the city. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: So far we have heard some very long speeches from hon. Members who favour the Bill and some very short ones from those who oppose it. I hope that that point will be borne in mind when those who have not had an opportunity to speak seek to ensure that extra time is made available.
One of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) is specific to my constituency. He chastises me about the proposed indoor stadium in Perry park which is to be part of the complex in the park. There is a fine outdoor stadium — it is a premier stadium — and an all-weather pitch. The indoor stadium will provide facilities not only for my constituents but for those of my right hon. Friend, enabling adults and children to participate in sport. No one would oppose that.
My constituents who live round the park do not want a stadium at the proposed site, but I have said publicly to the city council and to my constituents that if the stadium is to be built anywhere, it should be built in the park. My duty is to get the best possible facilities that I can for north Birmingham. Capital spending on facilities for people to use is a different bag of chips from capital spending on digging up lamp posts and laying down safety barriers for one day a year. The stadium would be of great benefit to thousands of people in north Birmingham, even though my constituents who live nearby do not want it at the bottom of their gardens. I have put their case—it is my duty to do so—but I am not duty-bound to support them. I am a representative, not the delegate of a small clique.
My right hon. Friend has lectured us about democracy and our role as hon. Members. I recall a private Bill before the House that was supported by the city council and the county council, the Labour groups on both those councils, and the Labour candidate at the general election, but my right hon. Friend opposed it. I refer to the Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council Bill. My right hon. Friend took a different view on that occasion. In that case, he was able as a Member of Parliament to judge the situation on its merits, and he arrived at the correct decision. He did his duty as an hon. Member.

Mr. Denis Howell: I do not disagree with that. No one says that my hon. Friends should not vote against the Bill if they so wish. The Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council Bill was designed to destroy the Shrewsbury Town football club. It was an entirely different matter.

The present Bill is not designed to destroy anything. It is designed to give powers to Birmingham city council, if it wants those powers. It is a totally different kettle of fish.

Mr. Rooker: Either we are in favour of local democracy or we are not. The argument is not one that my right hon. Friend can sustain.
In an intervention, I reminded the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) that in the past he had voted against this proposal in the House of Commons, as did the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) and the Minister of State, Department of Transport. They did not argue in favour of giving a fair wind to the Bill then under consideration and allowing the case to be argued in Committee. On 11 February 1976, they trooped into the Division Lobby, on what was the first recorded incident of a Conservative Whip on a private Bill, to vote down the West Midlands County Council Bill, part III of which was the mini-Bill to provide a grand prix road racing circuit in the centre of Birmingham.

Sir Reginald Eyre: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want to be unfair. It is true that that Bill included a provision for motor racing. However, that formed no part of the Second Reading debate. The major parts of the Bill were concerned with what the hon. Gentleman described as the advancement of municipal trading. What is more, it was to promote municipal trading at the expense of ratepaying private traders. That was the principle on which the Bill was rightly defeated.

Mr. Rooker: Yes, but it was not granted the privilege of a Committee stage so that the details could be considered — an exactly contrary argument to that advanced in respect of this Bill. What is more, it is not true that the Second Reading debate was concerned solely with municipal trading. It was not. The hon. Member for Edgbaston concentrated her remarks — as I did — exclusively on the proposed road race. On that occasion she spoke against it, as I did. There was an instruction to leave out part III, but as the Bill did not get a Second Reading the issue was never raised. I might add that I voted in favour of the Bill because I wanted it to have a Committee stage. Tonight, nine years later, we are going round the same circuit, but I see nothing to change my mind about the road race. The Bill concentrates on one issue, and I shall do what I would have done that night if the instruction had been selected and vote to leave out part III. I make no bones about that.
The argument centres on money. Other arguments are outlined in the instructions, some of which, Mr. Speaker, you have been good enough to select and others of which have been referred to. I shall not go into detail on any of them. If the Bill has a Committee stage and comes back here on Report, there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to table specific amendments to turn those instructions into reality.
The main issue relates to capital expenditure. There is no special Government grant for this project — or is there? There have been special Government grants for other projects that have been mentioned in the debate. The national exhibition centre, for example, would not have gone ahead unless central Government funds had been injected into the financial arrangements. But there is nothing for this proposal and, as far as I know, there is nothing on offer.
Birmingham city has suffered massive cuts since 1979. At the moment, the city Labour party is organising a citywide petition to Parliament trying to get back £125 million lost in rate support grant since 1979. The effect is £358 lost in rate support grant for each household since 1979.
Last week, the city council—not the Labour party—began to distribute a glossy leaflet outlining to the citizens of Birmingham the cuts that the Government have imposed. The message from councillor Knowles describes in stark terms the effects on citizens. It is being pushed through every door in the city. A city council cannot put out that kind of propaganda asking people to sign a massive petition to Parliament, and then say that there is £1·5 million spare that has been found and does not have to be used, so it might be an idea to promote a grand prix road race.

Mr. Snape: rose—

Mr. Rooker: I shall not give way, in the hope that there will be time for at least two more Birmingham Members to participate.
On 5 February a report was put before the Birmingham city council by the housing officer, not about council houses but about housing generally—public and private. It was a real horror story. One dwelling in six in Birmingham is unfit, compared with one in 16 nationally. That is the scale of the tragedy. Curtailment of funds had not produced a situation of that kind when we last discussed this project. Moreover, on that occasion the House was not asked for specific consent to this project.
I have photos of a house in Willmore road in my constituency. There is only one tap on the sink because there is no hot water system. The toilet is outside. There is no photograph of the bathroom because there is no bath. The widow and three children who live there cannot even get the mandatory grants because of Government cuts. How can I advance that constituent's case with the city council and the Minister for Housing if I vote for £1·5 million capital expenditure on this project? The retort would be, "Where are your priorities as a constituency Member?"
I make it quite clear that my priorities are not the same as those of Tory Members who represent quite different areas of Birmingham. Things may look rosier in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hall Green where only 3·8 per cent. of dwellings lack exclusive use of an indoor toilet or bath, compared with 9 per cent. in my constituency and 9·1 per cent. in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). That is a damned good reason for voting against this proposal. The constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath has 6·9 per cent. unfit dwellings. The figure for Hall Green may be low, but in Billesley ward it is 6·5 per cent. Moreover, there is nothing in the city's capital expenditure programme up to 1987–88 to deal with that problem. Councillor Fred Rose has pointed out that Hall Green is not all leafy suburbs. The problem may not be so great, but there is rotten housing there just as there is in the majority of Labour constituencies.
We are told that this project will not be a burden on the ratepayers and that it is guaranteed to make money, but I have not seen any guarantee. If someone can guarantee in

writing that there will be no loss to the ratepayers and that all profits will go to the city, I will march into the Lobby to vote for the Bill and assist its passage as best I can, but no one can give that guarantee. When the city council's public relations advisers first got going on this, they put the following sentence into one of the documents:
We will not be taking decisions on whether to repair leaking roofs or to support the race.
But that is simply not true, as they have since confirmed. No one now denies that the money will have to come out of the budgets of other city council departments.
Moreover, the project will not succeed unless the number of supporters is high. We are told that more than 200,000 people went to the free parades—not races—through the city. Many people have told me that they were happy to take the kids on a free day out to see the cars going past at 30 miles per hour, but that they would not take them to a race because they do not believe that it can be organised safely. That decision will be even firmer when they see the estimated ticket prices. The numbers vary.
The city council tells us that the top estimate for the two days is 145,000 people on race days and 65,000 on practice days, and the pessimistic view is 180,000 people for both days. However, we are now told by the parliamentary agents, in one of the worst parliamentary briefs that I have ever seen on a private Bill, that the council expects 250,000, and no qualification is given. I do not know where the extra numbers have come from, and we have been given no information.
It is estimated that 35,000 people will pay £17·50 or more at 1984 prices for a ticket. But it is estimated that the other 110,000 people will pay only a fiver each—not per family. Those prices will not commend themselves to the many unemployed people in our city.
We need some clarification on another point. I looked at some of the files relating to the Bill when it was first introduced in 1976. We are now told that Birmingham is not asking for a grand prix. However, we know that Birmingham cannot have a grand prix. Before it can have a grand prix it has to have two or three other races in previous years so that it can have a certificate to apply for a grand prix. The promoters' document says "No grand prix." However, other documents refer to no grand prix "at present." That point has not been clarified, and it should be. The absence of that clarification, despite all the time that we have had, is another reason for not allowing the Bill to proceed.
There is then the referendum. In documents published by the city council and in leaflets sent to hon. Members last week, although notably not to some Labour Members, it was said that 93 per cent. of the people who live in the area chosen for the race voted in favour of it. That is a lie. The city council people who wrote it know that it is a lie, as are all those propaganda leaflets making that claim. Everybody who looks at the figures will know that that is the case.
Only 4,520 ballot papers were printed and only 1,553 were returned, of which 1,270 were for and 383 were against. I make that 81 per cent. of those who voted were in favour, and, of those asked to vote, 2·8 per cent. were in favour. That is a somewhat different figure from 93 per cent. of all those living in the area being in favour. I do not go round saying that the vast majority of the people voted for the Government. As a percentage, fewer people voted in favour of this Government in 1983 than in 1979,


or when the Conservatives lost power in 1964. Let us not lose the argument on the hype of a PR exercise. I have given the facts. Of those living in the area, only 1,270 voted in favour, and that is 28 per cent.
I shall not refer to the cigarette advertising, because I should be out of order to do so and there is not enough time.
How will this race be organised? Success is not guaranteed, and it has to be before I shall vote for the Bill, given the financial restraints on the city. The city council tells us that it will have no problem organising the race, because it has taken
the advice of experienced road race organisers at all stages of development of the project.
The consultants are International Festival Services (UK) Ltd., Birmingham, whose managing director is Martin Hone.
I have only ever had a two-minute conversation with Mr. Hone, although we did correspond in 1976. I then referred to him as a night club owner in the city — a former racing driver pushing a line. He is not a night club owner now, and I remember that there was some embarrassment to the city council when I read out part of a letter that he had sent to me about all the occasions on which his advice had been sought by city council departments. I do not know whether he is qualified or not.
What I have to say next was said in front of witnesses. The leadership of the city council — the most senior councillors concerned in organising this matter — told me, in a room upstairs, with some of my hon. Friends present, that they wished that they did not have to deal with Mr. Martin Hone, as he did not have their confidence. It is no good arguing. Four or five witnesses were present at what was a calm and cool discussion. It is not scurrilous at all. The whole thing hangs on entrepreneurial skill and confidence in organising road races to make a profit. The city council may say that it has total confidence in everyone concerned, but that is not what it says in private. That must be said here because Birmingham ratepayers' money is involved. [Interruption.] I have made no accusations against anyone. I have only said that the most senior city councillors concerned with the road race have said that they wished that they did not have to deal with Mr. Hone and they do not have total confidence in him. It is as simple as that. He is said to have run races all over the world. That may be great, but I am concerned with what Birmingham city council tells me after three months of asking for private discussions on a partisan basis because we were not prepared to sit down on an all-party basis until certain points were clarified.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: What international road races has that gentleman run in Britain, Europe and the United States?

Mr. Rooker: I can only give the hon. Gentleman part of the brochure which went to all hon. Members and which lists certain events—for example, the Dubai grand prix, and he is mentioned as a consultant on the 50th anniversary of the Swiss grand prix. They may have been fantastic financial successes, but we must have a guarantee that the city council has confidence in the people that it employs.
Money is the key issue, and there is some doubt whether it can be recouped. There is no guarantee of a profit. Money will come out of other city council budgets.

Therefore, I do not see how hon. Members can come to the House and truly represent their constituents in Birmingham and vote for the Bill.

Mr. Roger King: We have just heard a speech of the utmost pessimism. The debate and the Bill are not necessarily about the creation of a motor race but about the future of our cities and what we are to do with them. The development of cities today has been ever outwards, into new hypermarkets and supermarkets on the edges, away from the city centres. Through the Bill, Birmingham is doing something to recreate some of the life and dynamics that we need within our city centres.
The subject happens to be a motor race. No doubt if there were a great park in the city centre we would be discussing a Grand National-type horse race. The object of this motor race is not necessarily to beat the drum for the sport of motor racing, although that would be useful, but to concentrate attention on the city centre and on what Birmingham has to offer.
Hon. Members on both sides have already mentioned the national exhibition centre and the proposed convention centre. The object of a motor race is to focus the world's attention on Birmingham as a city. If one decided to advertise the city through the medium of commercial television, one advertisement and a few peak time slots would cost about £250,000. The city of Birmingham frequently advertises itself as the heart of the United Kingdom. Indeed, so successful has it been that it was given an award only last Thursday for the best campaign to attract people and tourists to the city centre. It is obviously part and parcel of the city's programme to concentrate on arousing people's interest in the kind of spectacle that we hope to stage with the motor race.
It is true that there are obviously a number of ways in which a given sum of money can be spent. As expenditure in Birmingham goes, 1·5 million is a small sum. I have the same share of houses in poor condition in my constituency as other hon. Members and I would very much like that £1·5 million to spend on housing in my constituency. However, we have to consider priorities. We want to create not only a place to live, but a place to work. There is no point spending money on an endless number of leisure centres and recreation grounds, useful as they are to the citizens of Birmingham, when a small proportion of that sum could create a focal point to bring people to the city and to attract attention in this country, Europe and overseas to our bold venture.
We have not had road racing in this country for many years and we have a number of purpose-built circuits, such as Silverstone, where I had my first experience of motor racing in my youth. I can vouch for the supreme safety standards offered by those circuits, but no one has yet mentioned the desire of the competitor. Hon. Members have spoken about the circuit owners, the RAC, the need for safety standards and so on, but the competitors make motor sport and 99 per cent. of them would welcome the chance to try their hand at road racing in Birmingham.
The proposed circuit in Birmingham is an interesting one. It has been tried out in a cavalcade of cars and been found wanting in some ways. The modest expenditure proposed will have to put many of the problems right. If the Bill goes through, the city of Birmingham will have to ask the RAC for permission to stage a motor race. The


vast majority of potential competitors are members of the RAC or holders of its licence to race and they cannot take part in races that are not staged under RAC rules. The fact that the race will be run under RAC rules is an important safeguard for the city of Birmingham.

Mr. Fry: Is my hon. Friend saying that he expects the RAC to have to give its approval before the race takes place?

Mr. King: If the Bill goes through, the city of Birmingham will ask the RAC for permission to hold a race under its rules. We hope that, in the light of what the House will have agreed, and of representations made by the city council, the RAC will grant a permit for at least one race to see how it works out. The city wants only the opportunity to run a race under RAC rules. Any other form of race is not on the cards. For a start, we would not have many competitors.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: People could be imported from the United States, could they not?

Mr. King: One could get round the problem, but we want to work with the legislative body of the sport and not against it. Without the RAC's approval, the race would not be part of the racing scene. The opportunity that the Bill offers is not merely to competitors and the city of Birmingham, but to motor racing generally.

Ms. Clare Short: For the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), I was reluctant to speak and vote against the Bill. The proposal has been put forward by Birmingham city council, which voted for it by a large majority, and, as my party controls that council, I had to think deeply before opposing the Bill.
The race will go through my constituency. I have talked to many of my constituents about it. I am aware, as everyone is—because it has been repeated ad nauseam—that there has been a so—called referendum, and that 28 per cent. of those consulted voted in favour of the road race. I have not met a single individual in Ladywood who is in favour of the race. I have not had a massive post bag. Most of those who live alongside the route are not aware that the road race is to take place. But the local Labour party, all of whose members live in the local area, oppose it and I have received several letters to that effect.
The RAC's comments are quite important and have been wrongly criticised. The RAC does not threaten to withhold approval for the road race. It says that, if the Bill is enacted, it will look at it again. But it says that it is its serious view that motor racing should take place on purpose-built circuits. I have been to only one motor race. I have heard all this talk about the glories of Socialism, and how motor racing will bring such great pleasure to the people of Birmingham. But my recollection is of standing at the side of the track with a few cars going past very fast. The only exciting thing to happen is perhaps that there is a great big crash. Ambulances come along and the spectator feels deeply upset and goes home.
That is what happened on the one occasion that I went to a circuit race. If those in the area who think racing might be fun turned up and witnessed such an accident—and they are inevitable—they might decide that it was no

fun at all. Their children would not find it fun either. If we are talking about Socialism, and giving fun and pleasure to the people, all of us can no doubt think of something better than spending £3 million on that. We could spend the money on something in which all the people of Birmingham, including Ladywood, could participate.

Mr. Snape: rose—

Ms. Short: I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way.
The tower blocks close to the circuits are deteriorating into slums. The lifts are usually full of urine. The ground around them is littered with rubbish. There are no caretakers, because when they leave others are not appointed. I have received complaint after complaint from those involved. Hon. Members may laugh at that, but it is a serious matter concerning my constituents' quality of life. It is more important to spend £3 million on improving the quality of their life all day and every day than to provide for one gimmicky little race.
In the brief time available to me, I should point out that I also oppose the road race because I do not like the way that the city council is approaching Birmingham's problems. Birmingham has massive unemployment as a result of the Government's policies. The Government have deliberately created unemployment and destroyed Britain's manufacturing industry. Consequently, the whole of the centre of Birmingham has a registered unemployment rate of 30 per cent. and it affects 300,000 people.
What is the answer for the proud and fine people of Birmingham? The answer is apparently a convention centre that will bring in some rich people from abroad. Our people may be able to pick up some of the crumbs from a road race. Wealthy people from other cities might spend a bit of money on beer and ice cream, so our constituents might be able to pick up a few crumbs there, too. I do not believe in that strategy. I believe much more powerfully—

Sir Reginald Eyre: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 73.

Division No. 175]
[9.58 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Couch man, James


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Crouch, David


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Crowther, Stan


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dorrell, Stephen


Bermingham, Gerald
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dover, Den


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Durant, Tony


Body, Richard
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Emery, Sir Peter


Bruce, Malcolm
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Budgen, Nick
Favell, Anthony


Butcher, John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Butler, Hon Adam
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Cartwright, John
Forrester, John


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Forth, Eric


Chapman, Sydney
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Cockeram, Eric
Fox, Marcus


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Franks, Cecil


Coombs, Simon
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Cope, John
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Corbett, Robin
Freeman, Roger


Corrie, John
Gale, Roger






Garrett, W. E.
Neale, Gerrard


Gower, Sir Raymond
Neubert, Michael


Grant, Sir Anthony
Newton, Tony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
O'Brien, William


Grist, Ian
Osborn, Sir John


Ground, Patrick
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Grylls, Michael
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Pawsey, James


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Pendry, Tom


Hanley, Jeremy
Powell, William (Corby)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Powley, John


Harris, David
Proctor, K. Harvey


Haselhurst, Alan
Rathbone, Tim


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Hawksley, Warren
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Hayhoe, Barney
Rhodes James, Robert


Hayward, Robert
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Rifkind, Malcolm

Heathcoat-Amory, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Henderson, Barry
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hickmet, Richard
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hicks, Robert
Rost, Peter


Hirst, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Holt, Richard
Ryder, Richard


Hordern, Peter
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Howells, Geraint
Shersby, Michael


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Silvester, Fred


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Sims, Roger


Hunter, Andrew
Skeet, T. H. H.


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jessel, Toby
Snape, Peter


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Squire, Robin


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Steel, Rt Hon David


Kennedy, Charles
Steen, Anthony


Key, Robert
Stern, Michael


Kirkwood, Archy
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Knowles, Michael
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Knox, David
Stokes, John


Latham, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lawler, Geoffrey
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Lawrence, Ivan
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lee, John (Pendle)
Terlezki, Stefan


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Lester, Jim
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Lightbown, David
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Thornton, Malcolm


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Tracey, Richard


Lyell, Nicholas
Twinn, Dr Ian


McCrindle, Robert
Waddington, David

McCurley, Mrs Anna
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Wallace, James


Maclean, David John
Waller, Gary


McQuarrie, Albert
Ward, John


Madel, David
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Major, John
Watson, John


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Watts, John


Mather, Carol
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Maude, Hon Francis
Wheeler, John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Whitney, Raymond


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wood, Timothy


Mellor, David
Yeo, Tim


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Monro, Sir Hector



Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Mr. Roger King and


Murphy, Christopher
Mr. George Park.


NOES


Anderson, Donald
Bennett, A, (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Benn, Tony
Clwyd, Mrs Ann





Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Cohen, Harry
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Loyden, Edward


Dalyell, Tam
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
McWilliam, John


Deakins, Eric
Madden, Max


Dixon, Donald
Martin, Michael


Dobson, Frank
Maxton, John


Eadie, Alex
Maynard, Miss Joan


Eastham, Ken
Meacher, Michael


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Michie, William


Fatchett, Derek
Mikardo, Ian


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Flannery, Martin
Nellist, David


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Parry, Robert


Fry, Peter
Pike, Peter


George, Bruce
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Gould, Bryan
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Gourlay, Harry
Randall, Stuart


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Redmond, M.


Hardy, Peter
Richardson, Ms Jo


Harman, Ms Harriet
Rooker, J. W.


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Sheerman, Barry


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Skinner, Dennis


Haynes, Frank
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Heffer, Eric S.
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Home Robertson, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hoyle, Douglas



Janner, Hon Greville
Tellers for the Noes:


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ms. Clare Short and


Leighton, Ronald
Mr. David Ashby.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 68.

Division No. 176]
[10.11 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Forrester, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Forth, Eric


Bermingham, Gerald
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fox, Marcus


Bidwell, Sydney
Franks, Cecil


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Body, Richard
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Freeman, Roger


Bright, Graham
Gale, Roger


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Garrett, W. E.


Bruce, Malcolm
George, Bruce


Budgen, Nick
Gower, Sir Raymond


Burt, Alistair
Grant, Sir Anthony


Butcher, John
Gregory, Conal


Butler, Hon Adam
Grist, Ian


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Ground, Patrick


Cartwright, John
Grylls, Michael


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Cockeram, Eric
Hanley, Jeremy


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hardy, Peter


Conlan, Bernard
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Coombs, Simon
Harris, David

Cope, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Corbett, Robin
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Corrie, John
Hawksley, Warren


Crouch, David
Hayhoe, Barney


Crowther, Stan
Hayward, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Dover, Den
Henderson, Barry


Durant, Tony
Hickmet, Richard


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Hicks, Robert


Favell, Anthony
Hirst, Michael






Holt, Richard
Needham, Richard


Home Robertson, John
Newton, Tony


Hordern, Peter
Osborn, Sir John


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Ottaway, Richard


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Howells, Geraint
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pendry, Tom


Hunter, Andrew
Powell, William (Corby)


Janner, Hon Greville
Powley, John


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jessel, Toby
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rathbone, Tim


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Kennedy, Charles
Rhodes James, Robert


Key, Robert
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Kirkwood, Archy
Rifkind, Malcolm


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Robertson, George


Knowles, Michael
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Knox, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Latham, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rost, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Rowe, Andrew


Lee, John (Pendle)
Ryder, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lester, Jim
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lightbown, David
Shersby, Michael


Lilley, Peter
Silvester, Fred


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lord, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lyell, Nicholas
Snape, Peter


McCrindle, Robert
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Squire, Robin


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Steel, Rt Hon David


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Steen, Anthony


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stern, Michael


Maclean, David John
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


McQuarrie, Albert
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Madel, David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Major, John
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Stokes, John


Mather, Carol
Stradling Thomas, J.


Maude, Hon Francis
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Terlezki, Stefan


Mellor, David
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thornton, Malcolm


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Monro, Sir Hector
Tracey, Richard


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Trippier, David


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Murphy, Christopher
Waddington, David


Neale, Gerrard
Walker, Bill (T'side N)





Wallace, James
Wood, Timothy


Ward, John
Yeo, Tim


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Watson, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Watts, John



Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wheeler, John
Mr. Roger King and


Whitney, Raymond
Mr. George Park.


NOES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Barron, Kevin
Lamond, James


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Leighton, Ronald


Benn, Tony
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Loyden, Edward


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McWilliam, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Madden, Max


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Martin, Michael


Cohen, Harry
Maxton, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dalyell, Tam
Meacher, Michael


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Michie, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Mikardo, Ian


Deakins, Eric
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Dixon, Donald
Nellist, David


Dobson, Frank
Parry, Robert


Eastham, Ken
Pike, Peter


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fatchett, Derek
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Redmond, M.


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Flannery, Martin
Rooker, J. W.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Sheerman, Barry


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Skinner, Dennis


Fry, Peter
Spearing, Nigel


Gould, Bryan
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Wareing, Robert


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Weetch, Ken


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Haynes, Frank



Heffer, Eric S.
Tellers for the Noes:


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Ms. Clare Short and


Hoyle, Douglas
Mr. David Ashby.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting the consideration of Lords Amendments to the National Heritage (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. — [Mr. Boscawen.]

Housing

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Housing Benefits Amendment Regulations 1985 (S.I., 1985, No. 368), dated 11th March 1985, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th March, be annulled. — [Mr. Meacher.]

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time the second Prayer:
That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Housing Benefits (Subsidy) Order 1985 (S.I., 1985, No. 440), dated 19th March 1985, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th March, be annulled.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: It is right, first, to observe that we are dealing with regulations with which the Department has dealt with its customary efficiency and dispatch. Local authorities have had a clear two weeks to digest the regulations before they come into effect on 1 April. That is contrary to the assurance given by the Department's permanent secretary to the Public Accounts Committee some few months ago, that no further changes in housing benefit would be introduced without plenty of time for the local authorities to digest them, but it is in line with the current practice within the Department.
We are dealing with the end of a rather distasteful process of cuts in housing benefit which followed hard on the heels of the general election, at which the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and all the members of the Government assured us that the country was on the upturn and that economic recovery was around the corner. It was a full month before cuts in housing benefit were announced, on the ground that the country could no longer sustain public expenditure at that level.
We are dealing with the tail end of cuts of £200 million proposed by the Department and by the Government. The first question we must ask the Minister is why we are dealing with the cuts tonight. We are aware that they are the end of the process which has dragged on for over a year. During that year there have been occasions on which Ministers in the Department, in a variety of contexts but usually when they were asked to improve housing benefit, have argued that it was not the right time to make changes as a substantial review was being undertaken which would cover the whole of housing benefit.
Why are the Government bringing in these changes literally on the eve, as we understand it, of the publication of the review? I recognise that the changes have been deferred for up to a year, which is what the Government's Social Security Advisory Committee recommended. Even so, it would surely have made very little difference to defer them for a few more weeks, or perhaps a couple of months, especially as in practice the local authorities have had so little notice of the changes.
It is particularly hard to understand why the Department does not defer the changes if — as the Minister's colleague told us in a parliamentary answer in October — the results of the changes will involve about £6 million in public expenditure. The Department has wasted far more than that in the administrative cock-up of introducing housing benefit. I should have thought that it

could save that sort of sum by administrative changes today, instead of taking the money, as is usually the case, from claimants and those on other benefits.
The time span of the changes involved, of which this is the latter end, is from April 1983 to the present day. All through that period Ministers, the Department, and members of the Government generally have talked up the costs of the housing benefit scheme, as no doubt the Minister will seek to do tonight. They have said how expensive it is and how difficult it is for the country to sustain this burden of expenditure. Yet over that whole period there has been a reduction in overall housing support. Against a background of continuing inflation, the value of housing support overall — housing subsidy, housing benefit, and so on — has certainly fallen. The reason why the value has fallen bears directly on the reason for the changes. The Government have deliberately chosen to switch public expenditure away from subsidy of housing costs and to allow rents to rise. Then they have used rises in rents and consequent rises in housing benefit to justify further cuts. It is a neat device but more than a little dishonest.
The income levels at which members of the public lose all entitlement to housing benefit have fallen by almost: £20 in cash terms since 1983. For example, a single pensioner receives £20 less than would have been the case in 1983, and receives no housing benefit whatever. Yet over that period, when the level of entitlement to housing benefit has fallen, inflation and incomes generally in the community have risen. The convenient cry for the Government is that housing benefit is paid too far up the income scale. Their own answers have revealed that it is impossible to receive housing benefit on average wages if one is paying an average rent. It is only if one is paying substantially above average rent that one can receive housing benefit on average wages.
I understand from the reply that the Minister gave to me last month that the level at which one now loses all entitlement to housing benefit is £136·40 for a two-child family with one earner. As the Minister will recognise, that is substantially below the level of average wages. Therefore, I hope he will not bother to repeat tonight, as his predecessors have so frequently done, the canard that housing benefits are paid too far up the income scale. Many people who have been entitled to housing benefit have lost their entitlement in the past two years. Since April 1983, nearly 1 million people have lost all entitlement to a single penny in housing benefit, and over 200,000 of those have been pensioner households.
One of the questions that we want to ask the Minister is: how many people will lose by that change? We recognise that the Minister may be in some difficulty—judging by his parliamentary answers — in giving a reply. It is sad that as time goes on and as the Department cuts more and more from housing and other benefits, it becomes less and less able to tell us how many people are affected and how much they will lose.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Ignorance is strength.

Mrs. Beckett: Certainly persistence is strength.
In practice, the instruments that we are discussing tonight allow councils which have above average rents in their area to apply to the Department to have that fact recognised. They can then be allowed to pay above


average housing benefit. We are aware that in the past the level of entitlement was set at 150 per cent., which is higher than the level in the order tonight, although the level in the order tonight is higher than the previous level which it supersedes.
However, that was in what one might, with hindsight, call the good old days, when councils set their own rents, made their own decisions about rates and did not find themselves losing literally thousands of millions of pounds in Government subsidy and being instructed, not advised, to raise their rents. What was acceptable at 150 per cent. in the past cannot be acceptable today when rents have been forced up so much against average wages or, indeed, any wages.
There are several problems, of which I hope the Minister is well aware. The first is that the authority has to apply for authorisation. If one is unfortunate enough, as many individuals are—perhaps some are represented by hon. Members here tonight—to live in an area where the council is not sufficiently concerned about its constituents to apply for authorisation, even if one is entitled to authorisation under the restricted scheme that the Government are introducing, one will not get it. That is a disadvantage of the scheme. I hope that the Minister will explain to us why it is necessary for councils to apply for authorisation rather than to have a national scheme that applies right across the country as is normally the case. Secondly, if one is unfortunate enough to be paying an excessive rent, which is out of the ordinary for the area, again, one will receive no entitlement to above average housing benefit. That, too, is a major disadvantage of the scheme as it now stands.
The scheme has two different thresholds for local authority or private rents. Why? I know of no justification that has been offered for that difference. Perhaps the Minister will be able to give us such justification. Even in areas which, under the order, will lose their authorisation to pay higher housing benefit rebate against their higher rents, those who retain that higher rebate will still get less money after the order becomes law than they did last week or, indeed, today.
I return to the question that I asked the Minister a few moments ago: how many people will lose by the order? We know that the number of people who will lose has risen even since the order was prepared. In October the Minister of State told one of my colleagues that 90,000 people would lose by the implementation of the order. Earlier this month, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State told me that 120,000 people would lose by the changes. He could not tell me how much they would lose. The Department does not know. It knows that the average council tenant will lose about 42p a week but cannot tell us what the average loss will be for areas where the entitlement is lost.
Last year the Social Security Advisory Committee suggested that under such proposals an individual on a £35 rent in an area where the authorisation is lost and where no extra housing benefit can be paid will lose £5·74 a week in housing benefit. Those were the figures of a year ago. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether they are the same today or whether, as one suspects, they are worse.
The Shelter Housing Aid Centre has calculated that, on average, tenants in those areas, apart from those at the high

end who lose almost £6 a week, will lose £2 a week from their housing benefit. Those are the people who can least afford to lose.
The Minister has given us a list of the authorities that will lose their authorisation. Perhaps he can also tell us tonight, or, if he prefers, by way of a written answer in the Official Report, how many authorities that would be entitled to authorisation today will not be under the new regulations. I ask that because I am seeking to inquire which of those authorities, too ill-informed or too uncaring of the electorates to bother to apply for the authorisation, the Minister is relieving of their embarrassment. As most of them seem to be Conservative authorities, he may find it worth his while.
I should like to ask the Minister some questions about the subsidy order. I presume from the way in which it is cast that its intention is to deal with the various questions raised by the councils that have sought — forced by the Department of the Environment—to raise their rents and to deal with the area of entitlement where many of their tenants would get assistance under supplementary benefit regulations, therefore placing the burden of their rent increases in that direction rather than on the tenants as a whole. I realise that the Minister and his colleagues feel strongly about that. Most of the changes in the subsidy order seem to be directed towards that end.
I am not sure whether a change is intended to regulation 22. When I first read the reference, I thought that the Minister was deleting regulation 22. I then came to the conclusion that he was merely confirming that authorities are able to assist tenants in special circumstances under regulation 22 but that they will not receive subsidy to do so. I hope that the Minister will be able to say tonight whether or not that is so, not just because when I first read the reference I was not sure about its effect, but because I understand that after a precisely similar regulation was tabled last year advice bureaux and perhaps even the Department, were inundated by queries from local councils which, like me, were under the initial impression that regulation 22 was being removed from the statute book altogether. Has the Department considered making the change in a different way? If not, why not? Like so much else in housing benefit, it has caused confusion.
Once again, the regulations are designed to remove money from people who are already poor. Most of them are comparatively poor. They are certainly not well-off, whatever the Minister an his colleagues may have sought misleadingly to imply. The regulations are designed to remove from such people yet further entitlement to housing benefit. When the whole package was first proposed, well over a year ago, the Social Security Advisory Committee said that the entire package should be withdrawn. It was not. Nevertheless, this one remaining element of the package should be withdrawn.
One can summarise the package, and much else that the Government have done relative to housing benefit, very simply and accurately. The higher the rent that people pay, the greater their need, and the greater the loss that they will suffer under the order and the regulations. That sentence should be etched on the tombstone of the instruments and of the Government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Mr. Ray Whitney): The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) seems to be following the example of her hon.


Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). She is indulging in the polemics that we have come to expect from him. I should like to set the record straight about what the Government have done. We have increased spending on the social security programme by about 28 per cent. in real terms since we came to office. Most of that spending has been devoted to maintaining — and indeed increasing above the rate of inflation — all the major benefit rates. We have also paid for increases in the pensions of some 800,000 new pensioners. With our level of housing support, that is a record of which we are justifiably proud.
The hon. Lady claimed that local authorities have not had time to understand and acknowledge the changes that are being introduced, but a circular was issued to local authorities on 3 September 1984, describing the changes. I shall deal with the points made by the hon. Lady, but rather than follow her any further down the highways and byways of polemical temptation, I would prefer to return to the detail of the regulations.
The Housing Benefit Amendment Regulations put into effect the changes to the housing benefits high rent scheme which originally formed part of the package of changes that followed on from the 1983 autumn statement. So much for our giving short notice of them.
These regulations increase the level of average local rents at which a local authority can apply to operate more generous rebates. They increase the thresholds from 120 per cent. of local authority rents to 130 per cent., and from 115 per cent. of private rents again to 130 per cent.
This change in the high rent threshold was one of the measures announced by the Government to control public expenditure. As the House is well aware, the Government lay great emphasis on the control of public spending, despite their achievements in social security spending, because they understand, as the Labour party has always failed to do, the vital importance to us all of reducing inflation. It is one of the Government's greatest achievements that inflation is now down to levels not experienced since the 1960s.
It is important to recognise that about one third of all our public spending goes on the social security budget, so it cannot be ignored that our economic strategy must be based on keeping that spending under control. High inflation is a disaster for us all, especially for those on fixed incomes and pensions for whom the Opposition pretend sympathy. They must understand what runaway inflation caused by their policies in the past means for people in those circumstances.

Mrs. Beckett: The Minister has just uttered some impressive words about inflation. Perhaps he will comment on the increase in rents between April 1979 and April 1984 of 123·8 per cent., compared with the increase of 63·3 per cent. in the retail price index — in other words, compared with inflation. It is getting on for twice as much as inflation. I say nothing of the increase in rates of 99·8 per cent. compared with an increase of 63·3 per cent. All have been forced up by the activities of his Government.

Mr. Whitney: The hon. Lady should compare those figures with the protection that we have afforded to the poor. She will be aware that housing benefit now helps more than 7 million households — about one in three throughout the country. Currently, it costs the taxpayer

about £4·2 billion a year. By any standard, that is a very large sum of money on a scheme which covers an extremely wide sector.
With this in mind we felt that it was better to seek economies in housing benefits than in the safety net benefits to which I referred earlier. The Social Security Advisory Committee accepts that there are some aspects of the housing benefit scheme which extend financial help further up the income ladder than anywhere else in the social security system and that, if cuts in social security spending are essential, it is reasonable to reduce housing benefits rather than the means-tested safety net benefits.
The basic rationale of the present high rent scheme is that in areas of very high rents tenants have to pay more for comparable accommodation than elsewhere and thus merit more generous assistance. To expect individual local authorities to meet this cost themselves would put a considerable burden on some authorities that was not asked of others. The problem about the high rent schemes is that the qualifying level, at present 115 per cent of private rentals and 120 per cent of local authority rented property, makes no sense of a definition of an area where rents are exceptionally high. Therefore, the change is long overdue. The original thresholds were about 150 per cent. of average rents, but these thresholds have been gradually eroded over the years. The new thresholds are far more realistic, but, at 130 per cent., they are still far short of the original position.
When the change was originally proposed, we estimated that the savings would be about £6 million. Since then, the number of authorities applying to run a high rent scheme has increased and we now estimate that the change will save about £7 million. Nationally, some 120,000 claimants will be affected by the proposed changes to the high rent scheme. Those claimants who live in an area where the authority still retains high rent authorisation will lose an average of only 42p per week. The effect on those claimants who live in an area covered by an authority which loses its high rent authorisation will depend upon the level of rent actually paid.
The changes in the high rent scheme have already been deferred twice. The original intention was to introduce them, with other changes, in April 1984. However, we agreed to defer them until November 1984 in response to comments made by the Social Security Advisory Committee and others. We agreed a further deferment, until April 1985, to ease the position of those claimants who might experience reductions in benefits from other changes introduced in November.
We have always made it clear that we intended to proceed with this change. In a written answer last November we confirmed that we would be going ahead with the high rent scheme changes in April 1985 as already announced. Out intention to make these changes has therefore been widely known for some time both within the local authorities and in the House.
The Housing Benefits (Subsidy) Order 1985 relates to the arrangements for reimbursing local authorities for the costs of administering the housing benefits scheme and for the cost of benefits awarded. There are no changes in the provisions of the order, which remain the same as for 1984–85. On their administration costs, authorities will receive a specific grant on their total administration costs, set at 60 per cent. in England, 65 per cent. in Scotland, and 70 per cent. in Wales, reflecting the different rate support grant arrangements. Authorities' remaining


administration costs will, as before the housing benefits scheme began, be reflected in the block grant arrangements.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Minister clarify the position regarding the remaining deficit, which presumably will have to be borne by the same rent-paying tenants who will already be suffering the cuts that he has announced?

Mr. Whitney: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will come to that point.
It has been suggested that these arrangements are not fair to authorities and that Government commitments to meet the additional costs to authorities arising from the housing benefits scheme are not being met. We have heard those arguments before and they are no more valid now than when we moved to the specific grant arrangement for reimbursing authorities' administration costs last year. The system which operated in the first year of the housing benefits scheme was that authorities separately identified "new" costs, which arose in implementing the new scheme, and "old" costs, which would have occurred under the rebate and allowance schemes that authorities previously ran.
That system could not continue much beyond the start of the scheme as the distinction between old and new costs becomes increasingly artificial. We therefore moved to a system which offers a very fair level of reimbursement to authorities. In broad terms, expenditure in 1983–84 on "new" costs according to authorities' subsidy claims amounted to about 45 per cent. of total costs. To reproduce these arrangements at national level would have implied a specific grant rate of 45 per cent. with costs net of specific grant reflected in block grant. But we recognised that such a rate of grant would have undercompensated authorities with "new" costs higher than this. That is one reason why grant levels were set at the significantly higher levels to which I have referred.
The great majority of authorities received at least as much support in 1984–85 as under the interim arrangements for 1983–84. Of more than 400 authorities which have submitted final subsidy claims for 1983–84, only about 20 have "new" costs above specific grant levels, and these "new" costs may include one-off development costs. We could not have ensured that no authority receives less support than in 1983–84 under the specific grant arrangements without absurdly overcompensating the majority of authorities and it would clearly be bad management and unfair to the taxpayer to do that. I cannot accept, therefore, that there are any grounds for reimbursing authorities' administration costs through higher levels of grant, as has sometimes been suggested.
We have heard a good deal about whether we are being fair to the authorities but much less about the need for authorities to administer housing benefits economically and efficiently. The change in 1984 in the subsidy arrangements for administration costs so that a fixed proportion of authorities total reasonable costs are met gives authorities more incentive to control costs overall. The Department closely monitors authorities' subsidy claims using a microcomputer checking system and asks authorities to explain any items of expenditure that appear to be excessive. We also draw the auditors' attention to points that require examination, including apparently high

costs. However we note the Public Accounts Committee's firm view, expressed in its recent report on the housing benefit scheme, that we should do more to monitor both the economy and efficiency of authorities' procedures and the quality of service that they provide. Of course, the housing benefits review team was asked to consider how administration of the scheme could be improved, and the Government are currently considering its recommendations in this sector.
No changes are proposed in the arrangements for reimbursing authorities for the costs of the benefits that they pay. We have heard suggestions that the rate of reimbursement for certified benefit expenditure is inadequate and again the Government have been accused of not honouring their commitments to meet authorities' additional costs. I should explain, for the benefit of those hon. Members who have not yet come across the term "floaters" other than in reference to voters—a use of the word that may be familiar to some hon. Members—that floaters are a problem that affect this issue.
Authorities receive subsidy on certificated benefit expenditure — that paid to recipients who also get supplementary benefit—at a rate of 100·6 per cent. In 1984–85 this amounted to some £2,670 million of subsidy. The 0·6 per cent. "premium" on certificated expenditure compensates authorities for floaters—people who would have received supplementary benefit but for the introduction of the housing benefits scheme, but who were floated off on to standard benefit. As authorities receive reimbursement of only 90 per cent. of the benefit costs for standard cases, the premium rate on certificated expenditure was introduced to compensate them for the additional costs they bear — 10 per cent. of the benefit costs for floaters. I hope that hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Oldham, West, will have remained with me during that somewhat technical explanation.
The premium rate on certificated expenditure was introduced to honour the Government's pledge to meet additional costs falling on authorities. The rate was based on the best information available at the start of the scheme, but we agreed that we should conduct a validation exercise to assess the accuracy of the rate. The Department carried out a statistical study for this purpose and the results were made available to the associations. The premium rate suggested by the validation exercise was 0·96 per cent.
Here, I should make it clear that neither Ministers nor local authorities agreed to be bound by the results of the validation exercise. Clearly decisions about the appropriate levels of subsidy at a particular time have to be taken in the light of all the circumstances. In our view, fine tuning of the subsidy arrangements, which is what a change from a premium rate of 100·6 per cent. to 100·96 per cent. would be, is inappropriate at a time when important changes to the housing benefits scheme are in prospect following the social security review.
The sums about which we are talking represent fine tuning—we are talking about one third of 1 per cent. of the amount paid in certificated housing benefits. The associations nevertheless complain that we are not meeting all their additional costs to the letter. I must point out that on the other side of the equation, changes in April and November last year reduced the proportion of standard benefit recipients, thus saving authorities money on the 10 per cent. of standard benefit costs which they bear.
Finally, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that article 5 of the subsidy order consolidates the provisions


to prevent the exploitation of the housing benefits subsidy arrangements. It brings together the provisions of the 1984 order and the amendment otder made in July last year.

Mr. Kennedy: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Where, in among all that, was the promised answer to my question?

Mr. Whitney: Would the hon. Gentleman care to repeat his question?

Mr. Kennedy: Is it not the case that the deficit from the percentages that the Minister has announced for the subsidy would have to be met in many cases by the same people who, as a result of tonight's order, will be facing higher rents?

Mr. Whitney: I have explained that the burden on the individual is small. On average, we are talking about 42p per person. Obviously, I cannot give an average for the whole area. That is simply not measurable. But for those affected the average is 42p.
I stress that the provisions are designed simply to prevent authorities—

Mr. Frank Field: The Minister keeps saying that the average is 42p. Earlier he said that 120,000 people would be affected and the saving would be £7 million. That is almost an average of £1.

Mr. Whitney: Obviously the cash costs are not met by a specific grant from the DHSS. They are reflected in the rate support block grant arrangements.

Mr. Field: We are not asking the question put by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) to which the answer is yes. We are looking at the average cost per individual under the instruments that we are supposed to be debating. The Minister keeps saying that on average it is 42p. Earlier he gave us two sets of figures. On the one hand he says that 120,000 people will be affected and that savings will be £7 million. That is almost £1 a week.

Mr. Whitney: As I have explained already, it is 42p in those areas where the authority still keeps its high rent authorisation. In the other areas it is obviously a question of estimate, case by case.
The provisions are designed simply to prevent authorities, and only a small number are involved, from gaining extra revenue from the taxpayer via the housing benefit scheme. I hope that there can be no disagreement about that.
The hon. Member for Derby, South asked me about the lists of the authorities affected. I am not in a position to give her that information at the moment, but I shall write to her about that. Finally, the hon. Lady asked why we should not make high rent schemes compulsory. That would be inappropriate since part of the extra cost of operating them falls to be met out of local authorities' funds.
I call upon the House to reject the Opposition's prayer.

Mr. Frank Field: I leave aside the Government's peculiar logic in saying that one of the main aims of economic policy is to keep down prices, although we are debating increases in rents and decreases in subsidies. If the Minister has a chance to reply, he will no doubt come back to that point.
In my short contribution I want to give a few reasons why we should not proceed with the instrument before us tonight. The first is that the Government already have in hand a major review of the housing benefit scheme. It is completely wrong to be continually bringing to the House changes in housing benefit when the Government have entrusted a group of people with a major review. I am surprised that those individuals continue with the review given the way that the Government treat them.
Secondly, we should not proceed with the instruments tonight for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) put forward. The local authorities have only about two weeks to put them into effect. Even if we regard local authorities as outposts of Government, that is a short time.
Thirdly, the cut of £7 million will be concentrated on a small range of individuals. We learnt from my hon Friend that people earning £130 a week and paying average rents will no longer be eligible for housing benefit. To relate that to a dispute that is going on not a couple of miles away from the House, the postmen on strike at Mount Pleasant earn on average £130 a week and that includes 20 hours' overtime. We are debating a housing benefit scheme which would exclude those groups of people from any help.
The Minister had some difficulty—to put it gently—in explaining what the average loss would be, but we know that some people will face losses of over £5 a week. The losses will be heavily concentrated.

Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman quotes unusual cases. Those who lose £5 a week will merely be brought back into the same position as others in similar circumstances, who have already been paying that.

Mr. Field: That is almost like saying to my constituents who have not been mugged, "Your neighbour has been mugged. We are going to mug you, so both of you can feel satisfied."
The Minister suggests that the best way to deal with high rent areas is to legislate to say that some are not high rent areas—although high rents will continue to he paid in those areas.
Those are the four main reasons why we should not proceed with these instruments, but I wish to also explain how they will affect the area that I represent. The fine print of the instruments shows that Liverpool will lose its designation as a high rent area for local authority accommodation. That means that Liverpool rents will probably rise by an average of £2 per week. In the Wirral, where my constituency is located—

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman may have inadvertently misled the House over postmen's pay. I have a letter that was sent to all hon. Members by Sir Ronald Dearing, the chairman of the Post Office. He writes:
Attention has been drawn to the possible implications of reduced overtime on postmen's earnings and the fact that their basic pay is £101 with postmen higher grade getting £116. But only 4 per cent. of postmen are on this basic grade pay and average earnings in the provinces are £160 for postmen and £202 for postmen higher grade (£190 and £229 in London).
It is important to get the true figures on the record.

Mr. Field: Another set of true figures has been put on the record. I do not dispute those figures. I was repeating


what I heard on the 9 o'clock news, which goes to show that one should not believe everything that one hears on the 9 o'clock news.
Tenants in Birkenhead and surrounding areas will be affected by the regulations because those in sheltered accommodation will lose the high rent provisions that existed previously and will suffer rent increases, as will their counterparts on the other side of the river in Liverpool. Those are additional reasons why we should not proceed with the instruments.
The Minister brilliantly illustrated one of the difficulties of the scheme — its massive complexity. There is a message to Opposition Members who sometimes fondly think that a way of implementing social security reform is to merge tax and benefits. When we first discussed housing benefit, we were told that it was a simple measure which would be easily understood. For most of us as legislators, it is a mess; for most of our constituents, it is a nightmare.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I shall follow the example of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and be brief and, I hope, to the point. I echo his closing remarks about the administrative nightmare which is the housing benefits system.
I think that Ministers will agree with the hon. Gentleman. If they do, it is all the more unfathomable that they should be making even more changes when they are on the verge of publishing a review that is supposed to be wide ranging and explanatory and which will, we hope, aim at simplifying the entire system. The fact that the Under-Secretary willingly nods in agreement when we say that the system is an administrative nightmare suggests that he is as confused as the rest of us about why he is proposing the regulations. However, he made it clear that the DHSS takes every opportunity, in every ad hoc way, to cut public expenditure at the behest of the Treasury. All too often, the first targets are those least able to bear the brunt of those cuts.
The loss of qualification as a result of this legislation is doubtless damaging. The Minister mentioned 90,000 people at a saving of £7 million. He set the measures within the context of the Government's economic policies, but it must also be set within the context of the erosions in the state housing stock. In recent weeks, Opposition Members and several Conservative Members have voted against various moves by the Goverment to reduce further the revenue that local authorities can, in different ways, pump into their housing stock or use to replace stock that has been sold. But this legislation will damage still further those who are entirely dependent on the state and who, therefore, cannot be overlooked.
The Government do not seem to realise—just as they do not with regard to the Health Service—that there is a conflict that they can never resolve between their economic policies, which make more people poorer, off-load more people on to state benefits and thus drain public expenditure all the more, and their aim to reduce the level of public expenditure. Consequently, nobody will benefit.
We shall certainly oppose the Government on this issue, because it is a morally wrong step to take at the moment. In practical terms it is clearly wrong. The Minister said that he did not want the high rent scheme to

be compulsory because it would put further pressure on the rate support grants of local authorities. But, despite repeated questioning, he could not deny the fact that council tenants would face further penalties and rent increases as a result of this move. That is just as much an economic as a political contradiction.
We shall therefore vote against the legislation and what the Government are doing with regret, but frankly not with surprise. The review of the welfare state is beginning to look more tattered and dubious at the edges with every day that goes by. If this sort of scheme comes out at the eleventh hour, we await the final report with some trepidation.

Mrs. Jill Knight: The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made a very sensible point — as he so often does — when he questioned the timing of this move. We are, after all, awaiting the outcome of the social security review. But, having said that, I have probably ended any unanimity that could exist across the Floor of the House.
The simple basic truth in such a very complicated matter is that we cannot go on making money available to those who do not need it. I was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) say that the higher the rent, the greater the need. It could be said that the wealthier someone is, the better the flat he lives in, and the higher the rent he therefore pays. But in my book that does not mean that he automatically has a greater claim on the rest of society to pay his rent for him.

Mrs. Beckett: I am pleased that the hon. Lady listened with such attention. Did she take note of the figures that I gave for the loss of all entitlement to housing benefit for a family paying an average rent? A two-child family paying an average — not a high — rent loses all entitlement to housing benefit on an income of £136·40 per week. Surely the hon. Lady does not consider such a family to be well off. That is about 70 per cent. of the average wage.

Mrs. Knight: The hon. Lady must not try to dodge her statement by drawing attention to another of her statements. That is not a fair point of debate.
The whole basis of what the Government are trying to do tonight and in general is to direct scarce public funds to where they are badly needed. It is no use the hon. Lady talking of the greater the need, the greater the entitlement and the greater the rent paid because that does not make sense. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) also did not make sense when he said last week that dental care should be free for all regardless of income. That is the basic difference between the two sides of the House.
As my hon. Friend the Minister said, there is a 28 per cent. increase in expenditure on social needs, and one third of all public expenditure goes on the social security budget. If that is the sign of an uncaring and hard-faced Government, I do not recognise it as such.
However, it is crucial to recognise that the £7 million savings can be, and no doubt will be, directed to those in greater need than some of those currently receiving benefits. That is how I understand the business before us. Although I shall wait until tomorrow to try to follow the rather tortuous speech of my hon. Friend the Minister, I concede that the principle of what he is doing is right and he has my backing.

Mr. George Robertson: When the Minister moved from the Foreign Office, I thought that I might escape his speeches. Now I realise that I cannot escape, and he is not improving. Having listened to his speech, we have one thing in common: neither he nor I knew what he was talking about. He has achieved one thing. Having spent last week listening to the Scottish Office Minister, this Minister has managed the unique achievement of making the Scottish Office Minister sound like an oratorical superstar. That is a real feat indeed.
The instrument directly affects my constituency, because a sheltered housing complex in Fife crescent, Bothwell, will be a recipient of the Government's move. The cut in my constituents' standard of living is not only important to them but has much wider implications for what the Government are trying to do elsewhere. They are trying to achieve niggardly savings at the expense of those who need help most. Those who have already suffered will yet again be hit by housing benefit cuts.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) made a reasonable speech, especially when she described the Minister's speech. She hoped that the small savings that will be made through the order will be diverted to those most in need. That would fly in the face of all experience of this Government. We know that the main beneficiaries of the Government's economic policies are not the poor and needy, but those in the highest tax brackets. This measure is typical of the mean-minded attitude that has characterised the Government.
We have been told this evening that the savings will be between £6 million and £7 million — the Minister has managed to revise the total upwards, which is represented by cuts in the income of the poorest at a time when the whole system is being reviewed. It is being done in haste in an already complex system — the Minister amply illustrated the complexity of the system — at a time when there is already confusion about the rent and rate increases. That confusion is now at its worst.
The complexity of the scheme is already huge. Even reading the documents relating to the instrument is difficult for hon. Members, and the Minister seemed to find reading the brief with which he had been supplied to introduce it an almost impossible task. What trying to understand it must be like for those concerned — the beneficiaries under the scheme — is beyond belief. It must he a nightmare for them, and I am sure that most of them do not have the slightest idea what the scheme is about.
People simply know that housing benefit helps them. They also now know that what the Government are doing will cost them perhaps £2 a week from their income. Even the Minister's tortured, convoluted calculations showed that in areas which will suffer major cuts people will lose £2 a week, and that certainly applies to the people in my constituency. Yet they are the folk who need help the most. Leaving aside the complexities of and background to, the arguments, they only know that they will experience a loss of money at a time when the Government's figures show that inflation is rising.
This is a narrow, almost spiteful and certainly unnecessary change which will impose more hardship on people who have already been the victims of the Government's policies. It is ill-thought-out and rushed, it has been insufficiently planned and it will be arbitrary in

its impact. Poor, old and vulnerable people will suffer for microscopic savings in a system which is being overhauled, anyway. This is a measure unworthy of the House, and it should be thrown out.

Mr. Hugh Brown: I shall be brief for the simple reason that I do not understand the regulations, Indeed, even the Minister was unsure of his ground, and he had a brief to assist him.
There must be a better way of considering housing benefit regulations than debating them late at night, especially, as on this occasion, when there cannot be more than a few hon. Members who fully understand the complexities of the housing regulations, let alone the action that we are being asked to take tonight.

Mr. Frank Field: Hear, hear.

Mr. Brown: Knowing that my hon. Friend is one of the most expert Members on these Benches on this issue, when he agrees with me I feel somewhat comforted in my lack of expertise.
Am I right in assuming that we are taking away the categorisation of high rented authorities? I was not aware, if that is the case, that a principle was being applied. Are there any such authorities in Scotland?

Mr. George Robertson: Yes, there are.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend tells me that there are. I have not seen the list, but considering that it is always assumed that average rent levels in Scotland are low, I am surprised that we have such authorities in Scotland.

Mrs. Beckett: It applies mostly to sheltered housing.

Mr. Robertson: Sheltered housing in Argyll, Bute, Clackmannan, Dumbarton, Dundee and Hamilton districts is categorised under the regulations.

Mr. Brown: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that information, which I recall reading in a document that I obtained from the Library. Nevertheless, it cannot be a major element in the authorities to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) referred because none of the big authorities, such as Glasgow, seems to be involved. That does not make it any the less important and it would be interesting to know the sums about which we are talking and the amounts that will be saved by the authority mentioned in the regulations being withdrawn.
How much will the cost of the benefit—because we are talking of rent subsidies—be increased by the recent increases in rates in Scotland through revaluation?
Surely that is a pertinent question. There is a lack of liaison over public expenditure. Cuts are being made, which we are resisting, and yet the Government are increasing the burden of public expenditure through some other channel. Apart from the changes in housing benefit, the Government are in difficulty in Scotland because they have not been increasing the level of RSG.
Why are there differences in administrative costs? The Minister has said that there is some relationship between the cost of administration that is being carried by the Government and the level of RSG. If he is saying that he understands rate support grant as well as housing benefit regulations, I refuse to believe him. I do not know anyone who could make that claim. I assume that there is a simple and obvious explanation.
I can understand the position of the new town corporations and the Scottish Special Housing Association. Those bodies are Government funded and all deficits are funded by the Government. In their case there is no rate fund contribution. However, I cannot understand the differences between England, Scotland and Wales. There is something that I have missed or more information should be available. Have these matters already been discussed with the local authority organisations, or with COSLA in Scotland, and is the information already available? The answers to these questions may help me to understand what we are doing tonight.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 228.

Division No. 177]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Eastham, Ken


Alton, David
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Anderson, Donald
Ewing, Harry


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fatchett, Derek


Ashdown, Paddy
Faulds, Andrew


Ashton, Joe
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fisher, Mark


Barnett, Guy
Flannery, Martin


Barron, Kevin
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Forrester, John


Bell, Stuart
Foster, Derek


Benn, Tony
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Bermingham, Gerald
Garrett, W. E.


Bidwell, Sydney
George, Bruce


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gould, Bryan


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hardy, Peter


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bruce, Malcolm
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Buchan, Norman
Heffer, Eric S.


Caborn, Richard
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Campbell, Ian
Home Robertson, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Howells, Geraint


Canavan, Dennis
Hoyle, Douglas


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clarke, Thomas
Janner, Hon Greville


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
John, Brynmor


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cohen, Harry
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Coleman, Donald
Kennedy, Charles


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Kirkwood, Archy


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Lambie, David


Cowans, Harry
Lamond, James


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Leadbitter, Ted


Craigen, J. M.
Leighton, Ronald


Crowther, Stan
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Dalyell, Tam
Litherland, Robert


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Loyden, Edward


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
McCartney, Hugh


Deakins, Eric
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dewar, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dixon, Donald
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dobson, Frank
McNamara, Kevin


Dormand, Jack
McTaggart, Robert


Dubs, Alfred
McWilliam, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Madden, Max


Eadie, Alex
Marek, Dr John





Martin, Michael
Sedgemore, Brian


Maynard, Miss Joan
Sheerman, Barry


Meacher, Michael
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Michie, William
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Mikardo, Ian
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Miller, DrM. S. (E Kilbride)
Skinner, Dennis


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Snape, Peter


Nellist, David
Spearing, Nigel


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Steel, Rt Hon David


O'Brien, William
Straw, Jack


O'Neill, Martin
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Park, George
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Parry, Robert
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Pavitt, Laurie
Torney, Tom


Pendry, Tom
Wallace, James


Penhaligon, David
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pike, Peter
Wareing, Robert


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Weetch, Ken


Prescott, John
White, James


Randall, Stuart
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Redmond, M.
Wilson, Gordon


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Winnick, David


Richardson, Ms Jo
Woodall, Alec


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)



Robertson, George
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Rooker, J. W.
Mr. John Maxton.


Rowlands, Ted



NOES


Ancram, Michael
Grylls, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hanley, Jeremy


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Body, Richard
Harris, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Harvey, Robert


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Haselhurst, Alan


Bottomley, Peter
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Budgen, Nick
Hawksley, Warren


Burt, Alistair
Hayward, Robert


Butcher, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Heddle, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Henderson, Barry


Colvin, Michael
Hickmet, Richard


Cope, John
Hicks, Robert


Corrie, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Couchman, James
Hill, James


Crouch, David
Hirst, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Dover, Den
Holt, Richard


Durant, Tony
Hordern, Peter


Dykes, Hugh
Howard, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Favell, Anthony
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Hunter, Andrew


Forman, Nigel
Jackson, Robert


Forth, Eric
Jessel, Toby


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Fox, Marcus
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Franks, Cecil
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Freeman, Roger
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Fry, Peter
Key, Robert


Gale, Roger
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Gow, Ian
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Grant, Sir Anthony
Knowles, Michael


Greenway, Harry
Knox, David


Gregory, Conal
Lamont, Norman


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Lang, Ian


Ground, Patrick
Latham, Michael






Lawler, Geoffrey
Nicholls, Patrick


Lawrence, Ivan
Oppenheim, Phillip


Lee, John (Pendle)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Osborn, Sir John


Lester, Jim
Ottaway, Richard


Lightbown, David
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Lilley, Peter
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Pawsey, James


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Portillo, Michael


Lord, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Lyell, Nicholas
Powley, John


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Proctor, K. Harvey


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Maclean, David John
Rathbone, Tim


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


McQuarrie, Albert
Renton, Tim


Major, John
Rhodes James, Robert


Malone, Gerald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Marlow, Antony
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Mather, Carol
Rifkind, Malcolm


Maude, Hon Francis
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Roe, Mrs Marion


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Rost, Peter


Mellor, David
Rowe, Andrew


Merchant, Piers
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ryder, Richard


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Miscampbell, Norman
Sayeed, Jonathan


Moate, Roger
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Monro, Sir Hector
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Shersby, Michael


Moynihan, Hon C.
Silvester, Fred


Murphy, Christopher
Sims, Roger


Neale, Gerrard
Skeet, T. H. H.


Needham, Richard
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Nelson, Anthony
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Newton, Tony
Speller, Tony





Spencer, Derek
Waddington, David


Squire, Robin
Walden, George


Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Stanley, John
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Stern, Michael
Waller, Gary


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Ward, John


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Warren, Kenneth


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Watson, John


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Watts, John


Stokes, John
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Sumberg, David
Wheeler, John


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Whitfield, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Whitney, Raymond


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Terlezki, Stefan
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Wood, Timothy


Thornton, Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Tracey, Richard



Trippier, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Archie Hamilton.

Question accordingly negatived.

NATIONAL HERITAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL [MONEY] (No.2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the National Heritage (Scotland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the moneys so payable under any other Act. — [Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Orders of the Day — National Heritage (Scotland) Bill

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 2

THE BOARD'S GENERAL FUNCTIONS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 9, after "to" insert "and interpreted for".

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10.

Mr. Stewart: Amendment No. 1 is straightforward. It is intended to emphasise the importance of interpreting for the public the items in the museums' collections. That duty is already implicit in the Bill, but the amendment serves to add a degree of emphasis to what is now generally agreed to be a central part of the museums' role.
I come to amendments Nos. 2 and 3, with which go amendments Nos. 9 and 10. Hon. Members will recall that following our dicsussions in Committee we added "artistic" and "archaeological" matters to the lists in clause 2(1)(d) and paragraph 3 of schedule 1.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 9 provide for the addition of the word "architectural", and the word "historical" is added by amendments Nos. 3 and 10.
Amendment No. 4 adds a new subsection to clause 2 which requires the board, in promoting the public's awareness, appreciation and understanding of the matters specified in subsection (1)(d), to have due regard to the Scottish aspect of these matters.
In the light of the discussions that we had in this House, I hope to get the support of the Opposition in commending the amendments to the House.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I should like in particular to welcome Lords amendment No. 4. Recognising the hostility with which the Minister in Committee greeted my proposals to enhance the Scottish aspects of the administration of the museums, will the Minister say why the Government have now so changed their mind as to make special reference to the Scottish aspect? Was the amendment wished on them by the House of Lords? Why have they changed their attitude?

Mr. Tam Dalyell: When will it be convenient to discuss the vexed question of the register of gardens?

Mr. Allan Stewart: I think that the answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is that that discussion would be appropriate on Lords amendment No. 8 to which we shall be coming later.
May I say to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) that the amendment, in contrast to the one that he tabled in Committee, is worded in such a way as to avoid the danger of encouraging a chauvinistic approach which might lead the new board, paradoxically, to neglect the

international aspects of its work. That was the point, as he will recall, that the hon. Member for Linlithgow also put to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 agreed to.

New Clause

MUSEUM OF SCOTLAND

Lords amendment: No. 5, after clause 3, insert the following new clause—

".—(1) The Board may form a "Museum of Scotland" and may include in that museum any or all of the objects which

(a) are presently in the collections of the Royal Scottish Museum or the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland; or
(b) may become vested in the Board in the future.

(2) Subsection (1) above is without prejudice to the Board's power to form other museums, either as part of the Museum of Scotland or otherwise."

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The new clause provides that the board shall have the power to form a museum of Scotland which may include any or all of the current collections of the Royal Scottish museum and the national museum of Antiquities of Scotland, or any items which may become vested in the board in the future. The powers for the board of trustees to do so are already implicit in the Bill. Therefore, there is not any real need for the Bill to be amended to achieve that affect.
However, there is no doubt that, ever since the Williams committee report, the idea of a museum of Scotland has attracted widespread interest and enthusiasm. The point about a specific reference to a museum of Scotland was raised during consideration of the Bill in this House, therefore we accept that it would be appropriate to include a suitable signpost in the Bill to reflect that amendment. I commend the Lords amendment to the House.

Mr. Jim Craigen: I think that we would welcome this improvement to the Bill. I always remain curious as to how these things come about. I suspect that it has been through the effective efforts of Lord Ross of Marnock and the Earl of Perth in the House of Lords on the matter.
Will the Minister say a little more than whether the amendment is a signpost? I feel that much will depend on the kind of advice that comes from the advisory committee under Lord Bute.
The membership of the new board will be crucial to the way in which it interprets its task and the flexibility that it brings to the new scheme of affairs. Finally, I wonder whether the Minister agrees that the changes will bring the museum of Scotland concept more fully into line with the ambitions that the Williams committee had for that concept.

Mr. Dalyell: I should like to know whether we are any nearer than we were in Committee to getting a cost estimate for the concept of a museum of Scotland. The more one hears about it, the more expensive it is likely to become. Bluntly, how in heaven's name can we realistically talk about a museum of Scotland when apparently there is not the money available to pay the teachers properly?

Mr. Barry Henderson: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government for proposing to include the amendment in the Bill. Without it, it would be difficult for someone reading the Bill, who had not read the proceedings in the House and another place, to realise just where the museum of Scotland fitted in. It greatly helps the Bill to have that clear signpost, as my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Wilson: I am surprised by the Lords amendment, and particularly by the sudden decision, after we have been through all the proceedings on the Bill, to accept a major change in the likely structure of the museums in Scotland.
The formation of a museum of Scotland did not appear in the original draft of the Bill. What we had was the establishment of the unified board of trustees. The Government were utterly unwilling to go further, although attempts were made to prod them into changing the Bill in many useful ways.
What strikes me as strange is that, if there is to be a museum of Scotland, apparently it is to be established on the say-so of the board of trustees. There is no arrangement for a parliamentary order, yet there would be a major switch-over in the formation of the museum of Scotland from the individual museums that are now in existence. I do not think that the Minister can easily slide out of the change by giving the brief explanation that he did. He said that it was to be a signpost of things to come. What is the Government's thinking? When is the signpost to become a reality? How will the measure be enacted? Does the board of trustees have the power to carry through this major structural change, which might have an effect on the staff of the museums, without the consent of the House, another place or the Government? All the responsibility seems to be put into the hands of the board.
As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked, where is the finance to come from? Will the Government lighten our darkness? Is the situation this, that the House of Lords has foisted the change on the Government, who were unwilling to accept it? If they were willing to accept it, why did they not put it into the Bill when it was first framed and printed?

Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is making rather too much of the amendment. The point of the amendment was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson). The powers for the board of trustees to set up a museum of Scotland are already implicit in the Bill. However, there is a great deal of public interest in the concept, so it seems reasonable that we should accept the amendment that puts it into the Bill. I say to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) that the amendment gained general support in another place.
I refer to the details about the museum of Scotland. As I said in Committee and on Report, we must await the report of the advisory committee and its recommendations. Of course, that applies to finance as much as to anything else. However, I hope that the House will recognise that we have increased the provision for the national museums for 1985–86 by some 12 per cent., both generally and in terms of purchase grants. That is a considerable sign of the priority that the Government give to the work of the national museums.

Mr. Dalyell: Finance is not a detail. It is a legitimate question, is it not? There must be some notional price tag attached to the concept of a museum of Scotland. What is that price tag?

Mr. Stewart: We have no notional price tag. We have appointed an advisory board whose membership has been widely regarded as correct for the purpose. We must await its conclusions. I am happy to put on record once more that the Government will give priority to the needs of the national museums in the direction of funds from the capital programme over the coming years.

Mr. Dalyell: The Minister's answer raises the question: priority over what? Will it be priority over teachers' salaries, or what?

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16

FURTHER PROVISION AS TO BOARD OF NATIONAL GALLERIES

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 17, line 25, leave out "and".

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 7, 12 and 13.

Mr. Stewart: The amendments add a requirement that in preparing reports for the Secretary of State on the exercise of their functions, the boards of the national galleries and museums should include information about the effect of admission charges made by the boards.
The Bill already requires that in such reports the boards shall include a statement of the total amount received by way of admission charges and information in such detail as the board thinks fit about rates of, exemptions from and reductions in admission charges made by the boards. The amendments ensure that when the boards produce such figures a relevant commentary will appear.
The amendments were tabled in another place by Lord Ross of Marnock and Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, so I hope that they will receive the assent of the Opposition.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Of course we welcome the amendments. They show that a glimmer of sanity is creeping through the fairly thick cranium of the Conservative party. During the sittings in the House of Lords, Lord Ross of Marnock, Lord Carmichael and others had to teach the Conservatives some sense.
The Lords, however, did not succeed in getting rid of the main problem — the general question of museum charges. The amendment was tabled in the Lords after a vain attempt there to make the Government drop the nonsense of museum charges. The amendment is a help in that we will now be given information about the effects of museum charges. There is some historical evidence about that. I have quoted it at some length in the House and in Committee, and the question was pursued further in another place.
It would be useful if the Government could assure us that they do not intend to press the Scottish museum, or the various national museums and galleries in Scotland, to introduce charges. The Government should tell us that


now. South of the border, there has been such pressure. The National Maritime museum has already introduced charges. That was the first break in the ranks, and Sir Roy Strong of the Victoria and Albert museum went to great lengths on television last week to explain why he had changed his views. He says that we are no longer living in a welfare-oriented society. We have shifted to a monetary society, and the directors of museums and galleries must follow suit. In other words, because of the pressure on resources, there is pressure on galleries and museums to introduce charges. Indeed, south of the border there has been a fairly direct instruction or suggestion that charges should be introduced.
When Lord Gowrie opened a library in Ealing on 24 September, he positively encouraged the introduction of charges. He deplored the fact that he could not charge for the loan of books, because that would be illegal. He went on:
If a charge is made for peripheral services provided by a library, then the user will appreciate what he or she is getting, use will be restricted to those who really have an interest, rather than a whim, and extra resources are available for the service as a whole.
First, he says that people will enjoy things better if they pay for them. As I am almost tired of pointing out, that through the ages is the philosophy of the harlot: if you pay for the service, you will enjoy it more. Then the noble Lord says that we should not allow people easy access to drop in merely on a whim. That might encourage the interest of some young people. Let them have an interest first; then make them pay to come in. Thirdly, he says that extra resources will be made available.
As we have seen with the National Maritime museum, the feeling about the necessity to introduce charges was because resources were being cut.
This debate is our last chance to get an answer from the Government. Do they intend to introduce charges in Scotland?
I am encouraged by my reading of the debate in the other place. Lord Gowrie has at least one convert. The main protagonist for the introduction of charges was not a Conservative peer. It was Lord Taylor of Gryfe, speaking, I presume, for the Social Democratic party. I do not see any member of the SDP in the Chamber at the moment, but at least half of the alliance is represented, and perhaps the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) will say whether the Liberals endorse the views of Lord Taylor of Gryfe on behalf of the SDP. After all, the concept of the noble Lord is exactly the same as that of Lord Gowrie: if a charge is made, the user will appreciate what he or she is getting.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe says that to have to pay to go into a gallery does not discourage him. He maintains that he enjoys it all the more and gets his money's worth. He was talking about seeing the Chagall and Renoir exhibitions. The noble Lord said—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not allowed to quote a Member of the other place. He must paraphase. He may quote directly only from a Minister.

Mr. Buchan: That is a great pity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I accept your ruling at once. It is unfortunate, because the noble Lord's remarks are well worth quoting. He talked about seeing the Chagall exhibition at the Hayward

gallery. In fact, that was the Renoir exhibition. The Chagall exhibition was at the Royal Academy. But so enthusiastic was he about paying to get in and so valuable was the experience of paying that he forgot in which institutions he saw the two exhibitions.
We are entitled to ask whether the Liberal half of the alliance endorses the view of Lord Taylor of Gryfe.

Mr. John Maxton: My hon. Friend will probably agree that, following the Liberal party conference in Scotland over the past weekend, the alliance is probably as split on this issue as it is on defence.

Mr. Buchan: I do not wish to intrude into private grief.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: Will the hon. Gentleman return his thoughts to Scotland and the possibility of the museum envisaged in the Bill? Does he accept that that there is considerable concern among his own Back-Bench colleagues about finance being made available? If charging were the system whereby additional finance was made available, that would be beneficial, the museum would be nearer to fruition, and everyone would gain. It would be better to have that gain than to adopt the dogmatic approach which seems unfortunately to be creeping into a debate which is supposedly about the heritage, not other spurious factors.

Mr. Buchan: On the last point, this is very much part and parcel of the argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has already asked what funds will be coming forward — not a small amount to be supplemented by charges but the amount necessary to fund and develop the museums.
The third heresy propounded by Lord Gowrie was the statement that extra resources would be available because, if extra resources came forward from charges, Government funding would be cut. That is the whole purpose of the provision.
We need an assurance today. We want a pledge from the Government that on no account will they encourage this false development, which is alien to our traditions, alien to the benefactions left to our museums and galleries and alien to the traditions of the philanthropists of the past who gave us so many of the objects to be seen there. An assurance to that effect from at least half of the alliance party would also help.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the amendment, as I believe he did. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not wish me to indulge in a general debate on the subject of charges, but I have said on a number of occasions already that there is no question of the Government forcing trustees to introduce charges. The decision whether or not to charge for special exhibitions or otherwise will be entirely for the trustees.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) has said, the amendment will supply information which may stimulate more thoughtful discussion of this issue than is usually evident in some of the doctrinaire pronouncements of the Opposition.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 7 agreed to.

New Clause

AMENDMENT OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND ANCIENT MONUMENTS ACT 1953

Lords amendment: No. 8, after clause 19, insert the following new clause—

" .—(1) The Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 shall be amended as provided in this section.

(2) In section 5 (acquisition by the Minister of historic buildings, their contents and adjoining land) after subsection (2) there shall he inserted the following subsection—

"(2A) Subject as aforesaid, the Minister shall have power to acquire by agreement, whether by purchase, lease or otherwise, or to accept a gift of—

(a) any building situated in Scotland and which—

(i) is in an area designated as a conservation area under section 262 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972; and
(ii) appears to him to be of special historic or architectural interest;

(b) any land situated in Scotland and which comprises or is contiguous or adjacent to any building mentioned in paragraph (a) above;
(c) any garden or other land which is situated in Scotland and which appears to him to be of outstanding historic interest but which is not contiguous or adjacent to a building which appears to him to be of outstanding historic or architectural interest.".

(3) In section 6 (which provides for, amongst other things, grants to the National Trust for Scotland for acquisition of historic buildings)—

(a) in subsection (2), at the end there shall be added the words "or of any land or garden contiguous or adjacent thereto or such as is referred to in section 5(2A) of this Act."; and
(b) in subsection (4) (extent) for the words "or buildings" there shall be substituted the words "buildings, land or garden".

(4) In section 8 (power of Minister to accept endowments of historic buildings)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words "the following provisions" there shall be substituted the words "subsections (2) to (7)"; and
(b) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1A) Where any instrument coming into operation after the commencement of this subsection contains a provision purporting to be a gift of property to the Minister upon trust to use the income thereof (either for a limited time or in perpetuity) for or towards the upkeep of a garden or other land acquired or accepted by him under section 5(2A)(c) of this Act or a garden or other land which he proposes so to acquire or accept or for or towards the upkeep of any such garden or other land together with other property situated in Scotland, he may accept the gift and, if he does so and the provision does not constitute a charitable trust, subsections (2) to (6) below shall have effect."; and
(c) in subsection (4), after the word "building", where first and secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words ", land or garden".

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I should inform the House that this amendment involves privilege. It will be convenient to take with it Lords amendment No. 15.

Mr. Stewart: Although there was no suggestion in our earlier consideration of the Bill that the existing powers in relation to historic buildings and land in Scotland be supplemented, I am aware of the expressions of interest in

this in correspondence with Opposition Members in favour of parity with the powers available to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England established under the National Heritage Act 1983.
Although it is unlikely that the extended powers will be used in the foreseeable future, I am nevertheless disposed to accept that there would be virtue in bringing the powers available in Scotland more closely into line with those south of the border.
Amendment No. 15 to the long title is necessary to bring the new clause within the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Craigen: I can see the point in extending the legislation in the way that the Minister has outlined, but I should have thought that if the Government were aiming for parity with the legislation in England they would have gone the whole way and agreed to a register of gardens in Scotland as I understand that that facility is available under the English legislation.
I have discussed this, albeit briefly, with the director of the National Trust for Scotland and I had the impression that sympathetic assurances had been given to the trust. At a time when the Government have fallen foul of the teachers and the ratepayers, I should have thought that they would not have wished to fall out of step with the National Trust for Scotland as well. In the interests of protecting the heritage of our gardens, it would seem highly desirable for the Government to agree to a register. I know that several of my hon. Friends have more specific points to put on this matter, and I hope that the Minister will seriously address himself to it.

Mr. Murphy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sympathetic to the alteration of the long title, but I trust that the spelling will be improved from that which appears on the Amendment Paper which says "acient monuments" rather than "ancient monuments".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's point will be noted.

12 midnight

Sir Hector Monro: I declare an interest, if not a pecuniary one, in the National Trust for Scotland. For the life of me, I cannot see why my hon. Friend the Minister has not accepted the amendments to bring gardens into this clause, that were tabled in the other place. I welcome the fact that a Minister now has the power to acquire by agreement the Lease of, or to purchase, historic houses, and that includes the purchase, by agreement, of gardens. Subsequently, there is now the power of the National Trust for Scotland to acquire gardens.
However, why will my hon. Friend not include a register for gardens? After all, there is the power in the English Act, which is clear and there for everyone to see. I accept that my hon. Friend will come back and say—[Interruption.] If Labour Members would only keep quiet, other hon. Members might be able to hear what is going on. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has the power to have a register of gardens provided, and the Scottish Development Department and the Countryside Commission for Scotland did a study of gardens in Scotland. However, we cannot prepare the way for the purchase of gardens without having a list to go to and some sort of priority for what gardens might be purchased if they were available.
We must not forget that gardens are just as important to our heritage as houses and parks, and many of the finest houses that have come into the hands of the National Trust recently have significant and beautiful gardens with them. Therefore, it is important that we have a register of gardens. I would be satisfied with this clause only if my hon. Friend the Minister makes it clear that we shall have such a register, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will use his power to arrange a register of gardens to be put into effect as soon as possible.
We are not asking for the earth. This list could be compiled relatively inexpensively, but we want one provided, and as soon as possible. I would be happier if I had such an assurance.

Mr. George Robertson: I am honoured to be able to say that I agree with everything that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said. I have to say so, because I declare the same interest that he does—a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the council of the National Trust for Scotland.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) says, in a week in which the Government have managed to outrage just about every section of Scottish opinion, including the football supporters, one would have thought that the last thing on earth that they would have wanted to do was to make some more enemies, especially as the National Trust for Scotland holds the tenancy for the Secretary of State's residency in Charlotte square. That might be one of the most popular evictions that could ever take place. In that exceptional circumstance, my right hon. and hon. Friends would not object to that eviction.
However, a serious point is being made by the National Trust. It is asking for parity in line with legislation for England and Wales. It seems incomprehensible that the Government would stand out and attempt to say that powers that the Secretary of State for Scotland has are identical or even superior to those powers provided by the English legislation. The National Trust for Scotland disagrees vehemently with that, as do a large number of other people.
I know the strictures of order in quoting from the other place and I shall paraphrase what Lord Taylor of Gryfe had to say on 26 February. He said that it would be logical to have a register of gardens in Scotland similar to that available in England. The Earl of Caithness spoke on behalf of the Government. Whether that was a one-off occasion or whether he has joined the long list of the aristocracy serving the Government I do not know, but he said that he agreed with the logic of Lord Taylor and went on to say that it was already open to the Secretary of State for Scotland to compile a register of historic gardens if he thought that it would be useful. He said that there was no need to seek the specific power which was in Lord Taylor's amendment. That was the assurance given to Lord Taylor and on that basis he withdrew his amendment.
The National Trust for Scotland has now directly contradicted the assurance given by the Earl of Caithness by specifying that the legislation of 1953 and 1974 for Scotland says:
grants may be payable for the upkeep of gardens … of outstanding historic interest".
But there is no explicit power to compile a register which would provide a basis for distinguishing between various

sorts of important and historic gardens. There is a clear distinction between that and the power that is available within the English legislation for compiling such a useful register in such an important area of Scotland's tourist heritage. This is the opportunity for changing the legislation and bringing that about.
The idea that research is a substitute is to mistake the purpose of the English legislation. There are many valuable gardens throughout Britain. In England they will be compiled and described and prioritised in a register of gardens. But there is no sign either that the powers are available or that the intention of the Secretary of State for Scotland is to compile a similar register, despite the fact, as the National Trust says, that Lord Young, whose meteoric rise to the Cabinet we all noted with interest, has been asked by the Prime Minister to specifically study the tourist industry and its ability to generate jobs, especially for young people. Scotland's gardens are a natural resource and yet the power that exists within the English legislation is being denied to Scotland.
What is being asked for by the National Trust for Scotland, the matter having been considered by experts within it, it is a reasonable request which the Government could easily concede without contradicting any of the ideological hang-ups that they may have. The very fact that the hon. Member for Dumfries and I, and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) can be as one on this matter is as good a sign as he will get of that. The National Trust believes that to be a reasonable request and I agree. The Minister should concede the case and try to buy back a fraction of the popularity that the Government have lost in the past few weeks.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I welcome the new clause, but I was a little disturbed to hear my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary say that he did not envisage the Government using it in the foreseeable future.
Had the Bill been in force a few months ago, it would have saved considerable problems over Towie Barclay castle in my constituency, because subsection (2A) of the new clause would have covered some adjoining land.
I declare an interest as a subscribing member of the National Trust. It is well known to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that the Trust had considerable problems in raising the cash to acquire Fyvie castle, which had some wonderful paintings and tapestries. Difficulties were posed by Sir Ian Forbes Leith, but eventually the money was raised. Subsection (3) of the new clause provides for grants to the National Trust for Scotland for the acquisition of historic buildings, and I hope that the Government will not decide that there is no need for the provision to be used in the foreseeable future.
More castles in my constituency are liable to be offered to the National Trust and I hope that we shall be able to approach the Government if the trust requires funds to acquire historic buildings for the nation and thereby retain Scotland's historic heritage.

Mr. Dalyell: What is puzzling is why there should be any resistance to the suggestion that a register of gardens should be compiled. What is behind the Government's reluctance? Will the Minister spell out the difficulties?
Secondly, does the Minister agree with the National Trust for Scotland that gardens are more sensitive to neglect than buildings? If he does not agree, he should say so. If he does agree, surely we ought to have the register that is asked for.
Thirdly, the 1983 English legislation was clear. What is the objection to our having parity with it?

Mr. Allen Stewart: May I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) that the powers in the new clause are additional to the Secretary of State's existing powers in relation to buildings of outstanding historic or achitectural interest. I said that the Government had no specific plans to use the new powers, but clearly occasions might arise when it would be appropriate to use them.
The National Trust warmly welcomes the emendment. The debate is about what is not in the amendment and not about what is in it. I reassure the House that if my right hon Friend the Secretary of State wished to establish a register of gardens in Scotland he could do so. A specific enabling provision is unnecessary.
Opposition Members gave stated that the National Trust for Scotland places great emphasis in the desirability of using the Bill as a means of securing parity of treatment for Scotland. I appreciate their concern, but the National Heritage Act 1983 did not confer on the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England a specific power enabling it to compile a register.
The new section 8(c) of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953, which was created by schedule 4 to the 1983 Act, merely sets out certain procedural steps such as notification to owners, which would have to be taken if a register was set up. Nowhere does the 1983 Act take the specific power to set up a register which the National Trust for Scotland is seeking for north of the border.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the Minister saying that Mr. Lester Borley is wrong in saying that we do not have parity with England, and that the position is the same in England and Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: Of course I have read the letter from the National Trust. I am trying to explain the technical differences between the positions north and south of the border. I have outlined the position in relation to the Act, but of course hon. Members are more concerned with substance than with technical points. I shall spell out the position in Scotland.
Last year the Scottish Development Department and the Countryside Commission for Scotland jointly commissioned Land Use Consultants Limited to prepare an inventory of historic gardens and designed landscapes in Scotland. It is worth emphasising that an inventory involves much more detailed information than a register. A register simply consists of a desk study and a half-page narrative on each site. An inventory involves on-site visits, and detailed maps and photographs of the up-to-date position. That study will take two years to complete. It will involve detailed examination of about 250 of the most important gardens and designed landscapes in Scotland in terms of their extent, component features and condition.
I believe that our decision to join the Countryside Commission for Scotland in commissioning the inventory is ample evidence of our concern for and interest in the subject of historic gardens. So we are taking a different approach from that of the new English commission. But I believe that this very detailed work will be widely welcomed. The inventory will meet the legitimate anxieties of the National Trust that we should all be more aware of this important part of our heritage.
When we have completed the work — and the work on the inventory has been widely welcomed — we can look at the question of a register, with a half-page description of each site.

Mr. George Robertson: How does the Minister answer the point that the inventory and the register are not mutually exclusive? We are told by the National Trust that the development of the register in England and Wales is leading to advice being given to the owners and managers of gardens that will protect them in the meantime. An inventory will be fine when it is eventually finished, but it does not have the added advantage of the register. We are told that a register will give guidance to all owners and authies in respect of gardens of special historic interest that need our concern for future protection. Surely that is the key difference between the interim stage of drawing up an inventory and the register.

Mr. Stewart: The information contained in a register is much less than that contained in an inventory. My point is that it is sensible to obtain up-to-date information, with maps, photographs and so on, together with information from on-site visits from the inventory before considering whether to add to that detailed information with a register. Inevitably, that would contain much less information.

Mr. Wilson: However meritorious the proposal is to have an inventory of gardens with photographs and so on, that would not be available to most people. Have the Government thought of having a summary made of the inventory — in the form of a register or otherwise — that might make such attractions more available to the general public, if not to those with a special interest in such matters?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point. We have not taken final decisions on the form of publication of the inventory. The information that it contains will certainly be publicly available.

Sir Hector Monro: My hon. Friend is splitting hairs in a monumental manner between the definition of an inventory and a register. Would it not be very much better if he said that the Countryside Commission and the Scottish Development Department are preparing a register of historic gardens for the Secretary of State? We would then all be happy.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend has made a valuable suggestion. I have tried to explain the difference between the approach in England, which is to provide half-page narratives as a result of desk study, and the more detailed research for Scotland. I assure the House that in the light of the concern expressed by hon. Members I shall reconsider how best we can ensure that the information from the studies is made publicly available.

Mr. Buchan: We wish to register our approval of the Minister's last remark.

Mr. Dalyell: Can the Minister give an undertaking that he will see the National Trust formally before coming to a decision?

Mr. Stewart: I am always available to see the National Trust if it wishes to raise matters that are appropriate for discussion at ministerial level.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 9 and 10 agreed to.

Schedule 1

THE BOARDS

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 22, line 35, at end insert—
() The Secretary of State shall include amongst the trustees at least one Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Hon. Members will recall that when the Bill was considered in the House I emphasised the importance that we attach to maintaining the links between the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland and the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland whose collections it founded and over which it presided for so many years. We made a number of changes put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) to take account of that concern.
It was suggested at that time, and again on Report by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) — with the sympathy of some of my hon. Friends — that the Bill should contain a more specific provision to clarify the relationship of the society with the new board of trustees. On reconsidering the point in the light of the representations, we came to the view that the historically unique nature of the society's involvement supported the need for some special arrangement.
This amendment, therefore, has the effect of requiring that at least one of the trustees appointed by the Secretary of State shall always be a fellow of the society. The society has expressed itself satisfied with this arrangement and I hope that the House will support the amendment.

Mr. Craigen: I welcome the amendment, but the Minister should wriggle a little more because he pointedly refused the proposal when it was put forward on Report. I know that the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr.
Henderson) and other hon. Members made the point in Committee about recognising the long association of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. I am glad that the Minister has come round to accepting the points put to him. I should like to see him wriggle a wee bit more in his explanation of how he eventually acceded to our request.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 12 and 13 agreed to.

Schedule 2

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 14, in page 31, leave out lines 37 to 40 and insert—

"The Capital Transfer Tax Act 1984 (c. 51)

4. In Schedule 3 (which relates to exempt transfers), for the words "The Royal Scottish Museum" there shall be substituted the words "The National Museums of Scotland.""

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. This is a technical amendment.

Mr. Craigen: Does this technical amendment imply that there was an error in the drafting of the Bill?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir, and I will give the technical explanation for the amendment. It replaces the entry at present contained in schedule 2(4). It reflects the fact that the relevant provisions in the Finance Act 1975 were consolidated by the Capital Transfer Tax Act 1984, which came into operation on 1 January 1985. Hence the need for the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 15 agreed to.

LIAISON

Ordered,
That Mr. Harry Cowans be discharged from the Liaison Committee and Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Durant.]

Orders of the Day — Export Services

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]

Mr. Richard Page: I do not think that anybody would put his hand on his heart and say that in 1979 our economy was in a financially sound position. We had inflation going through double figures and rising, a public sector borrowing requirement which was unacceptably high as a percentage of our gross national product, a record number of hours being lost through strikes, a luddite approach to new technology and increasing levels of imports. Indeed, our whole approach to work and produotivity earned us the reputation among our foreign competitors of having the British disease.
Now, six years on, we have a sound economic base, and for that we must give full credit to the Government for creating an environment in which people are now accustomed to working for their living. Our inflation rate is well into single figures.
However, we still have immense problems, the major one being unemployment. Whatever reasons may be advanced for our level of unemployment — the demographic profile, the reduction in demand for the products of the traditional industries, the advance of new technologies, and so on — the Government have a responsibility and duty to tackle that problem.
The economic base on which we can now build is sound, unlike the base that existed in 1979. Among the choices that we now have to increase our economic activity, apart from doing nothing, are to put money into the infrastructure; to increase demand in Britain, with the risk, of course, of increasing imports; to bring about import substitution; or to encourage exports.
I do not believe in doing nothing. The Lord helps those who help themselves, and I believe that the most effective steps that we could take to improve the nation's economic activity would be to help exports, which is the main topic of this debate. Such help would be appropriate because we are a trading nation.
I refer in particular to support for our exporters, because the multiplying effect that could come from such assistance would be more effective in giving value for money by generating necessary economic activity in the United Kingdom. Any increased export help would produce some additionality — though I accept the difficulty in quantifying the value of that additionality—and would reduce the nation's social cost of unemployment.
I should like to deal with the whole range of export supports, but in the time available I can make only a few broad points and then refer specifically to certain areas of the aid and trade provisions and the role of the British Overseas Trade Board.
On the broad points, I should at the outset record the value of the strength of the interlocking operation that we have between the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry.
British exporters have mentioned the improvements that have come about over the past five years, and Foreign Office figures show the response that has been generated. There were about 43,000 market inquiries in 1980, and in 1983 there were 64,000. Visitors to overseas posts amounted to 66,000 in 1979 and in 1983 they had risen to

77,000. There has been a switch of emphasis in the role of staff within our overseas missions with about 30 per cent. of the staff now being engaged on commercial work. Work in the commercial sector is now a part of standard Foreign Office training.
The Foreign Office carries out an in-depth review every four years. It is a blockbuster review. The British Overseas Trade Board evaluates its resources every year. I ask my right hon. Friend to take steps to get the Foreign Office to carry out a mini commercial evaluation each year to reflect especially market changes. The changes that are taking place in countries around the Pacific basin are developing at an enormous rate. There is always the tendency to say, "We won't do anything until the review is agreed and out of the way." I think that we can respond slightly quicker than that.
I should also like to see more activity and resources being put into the countries that can pay the bills. We should take a leaf out of our competitors' books. France and Germany, for example, are concentrating their overseas missions in the countries that are able to pay for the services that they receive.
On the second point I would like to make, it is important that we get the best value out of our aid programme. That is the approach of every major contributor to overseas aid. I believe that British companies are concerned to know whether we are making the best use of the expenditure that is voted for the aid programme. Other major aid donors, such as France, Japan and Germany, give a far smaller proportion of their total aid programme to multilateral agencies. They prefer to keep the bulk available for their own Governments' use.
Multilateral organisations play an invaluable role, but why should multilateral contributions represent a higher percentage of our total aid programme in terms of GDP than those of other countries? Moreover, the multilateral funded projects are let on an internationally competitive basis. The British companies that win would have won irrespective of the size of our contribution. We can probably all produce tables to prove that point.
I also would like to ask why we give such a high proportion of our bilateral aid in the form of 100 per cent. grants. According to the 1983 aid commitment, France had more than $1 billion in the form of soft loans, Germany had about $900 million and Japan had $2·4 billion. The United Kingdom had only about $180 million in forms other than 100 per cent. grants. That means that other countries are prepared to offer lower subsidies in their aid. That in turn means that, for a given amount of subsidy, they can capture more business. I put it to my right hon. Friend that it might be more sensible to have more aid in the form of aid and trade provisions where a grant of about 20 to 30 per cent. is linked to export credit support and so generate perhaps four times the business that might come from 100 per cent. grants.
I believe that, for the first time for many years, last year's budget was spent completely. I do not know whether that occurred because there was more flexibility in the sectors or in the time scales or because the projects and exports policy ratio was allowed to exceed the three times factor. Whatever it was, it is welcome.
Any comment on aid and trade inevitably draws with it the Byatt report, which is concerned with the Government having to pay benefit now and collect later. The report raises doubts about whether benefits will outweigh costs and about the value of additionality.


Although the Byatt report is correct in asking questions about whether value for money is obtained, it tends to gloss over the fact that Britain is a trading nation. We obtain 33 per cent. of our GNP from exports and we do not live in a vacuum. We have to compete and sell in international markets if we are to survive. I am worried about the fact that previous areas of traditional excellence are under threat. Sectors in the electro-technical industry provide a typical example. In 1966 they had a positive trade balance in their favour of 37·8 per cent.; in 1983, that trade balance had dropped to 10·4 per cent. We cannot afford to lose such a percentage of the market share implicit in those figures.
I hope that the different rate of subsidy through "consensus" is closer to market rates today and will give better value for money. I believe that that has happened since the Byatt report appeared. Nevertheless, I should repeat what was said in the report on 15 March 1984 by the Comptroller and Auditor General about the Export Credits Guarantee Department. The report stated:
The National Economic Development Office seriously questioned many of the key assumptions underlying the Byatt study findings.
We would do well to continue to question those assumptions, because, whatever else we do, we are tied to the international market scene. The cost of staying in and matching our competitors' support — unfair as it might be sometimes — will be considerably less than opting out and trying to get back into those markets later. I hope that active investigation will take place into the value of increasing the aid and trade provision.
I should like to refer to the proposed changes to the British Overseas Trade Board's funding of overseas trade fairs and its effect on small and medium-sized companies. I mention that point because of my long-standing interest in small businesses and the fact that I am a vice-chairman of the Small Business Bureau and have been actively involved with small business ever since I became a Member of Parliament. Using the BOTB's definition of a small company as one that employs 200 or fewer employees, in 1983, 7,348 companies participated in overseas fairs. More than 5,000 of them were small businesses.
Working on the maxim that if one does not show one does not sell, I am worried that if we allow our support to the overseas trade fairs to erode the smaller companies will lose out. The larger companies have resources and can afford to go to the fairs; the small companies cannot. I appreciate the fact that more emphasis is to be given to putting the newcomers, rather than the regulars, on to the overseas trade fair scene. I suggest that that should be a separate argument and not one to reduce support for the regular companies which participate in overseas trade fairs. I am concerned about the proposal to reduce the travel rebate, giving it only to first-timers. It takes a considerable time to become established in overseas markets. It is not achieved by calling at the door for the first time. I understand that in one industry sector which normally takes part in six fairs a year, one fair has been lost and another is under threat. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that.
I started the Adjournment debate by mentioning improvements in support given to exporters over the past five years. I hope that my comments and requests for

further support will be regarded as constructive, and not as criticism. I trust that they will be examined for their viability in boosting United Kingdom exporters and employment.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Paul Channon): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) for raising this important topic. I congratulate him on putting his finger on so many important points of great interest to British business and exporters.
My hon. Friend's interest in small firms is well known. I hope to show him that what we are doing will help small firms and that we are interested in trying to enable small firms to export profitably. I agreed with a great deal of what my hon. Friend said about the importance of a sound economic base, the great improvements that have taken place over the past few years and the importance of trying to help exporters at present.
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's well-deserved tribute to the work of the commercial staff of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and I shall ensure that his remarks are drawn to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. I strongly agree with them.
I hope that I shall be able to deal with most of the points that my hon. Friend mentioned. The activities of ECGD, the aid programme, a wide range of visits overseas by Ministers and our trade policy work, aimed at keeping an open trading system, all help our export trade effort, as are the export promotion services under the guidance of the business men on the British Overseas Trade Board. The aim is to help smaller and medium-sized companies with the regulatory, technical and commercial difficulties of getting into new markets. We work with firms to grasp opportunities and enter markets that can and do pay for the goods that they receive. When the firms are established their sales should pay for the full costs. There is help for big firms as well, in particular in countries where relations with the Government are crucial, and we try to help with securing major project business. My hon. Friend referred to the aid and trade provision, and I shall return to that subject later.
I agreed with what my hon. Friend said about how we must ensure that we make the best use of the money and manpower paid for by the taxpayer in achieving our objectives.
We must obtain good value for money from the BOTB's budget. Next year that will be a net cash amount of £27·7 million. Those services are focused on newcomers to markets and smaller firms. From the surveys and questionnaires that have been sent out, it is clear that the export services are helping small firms. Up to three quarters of the users have fewer than 200 employees, and the measures designed to concentrate the help more clearly on newcomers to markets will help concentrate efforts on small firms even more. A number of things have happened in recent years which have helped in that—for example, the lower limits on the terms of the market entry guarantee scheme to help small firms, and the provision of £100 worth of free advice to small firms on the technical requirements of overseas markets. I could give other examples if time permitted.
My right hon. Friend determines the overall budget for all those activities as part of the normal public expenditure process, and he has to take into account the overall


priorities within his Department. Everybody could do with a bit more, not least the BOTB, but a bit more for everybody is not consistent with the proper control of public expenditure.
The detailed allocation of resources is under the guidance of the BOTB. It issued a consultation paper, and there were a great many replies which in general supported the emphasis on newcomers and smaller firms. The board has been very sympathetic to those points. It has modified its original proposals for providing travel grants for missions and those manning stands at overseas trade fairs to spread them over a long period and to give the opportunity for some more experienced exporters to take part, as was suggested in so many of the comments that have been received.
We are also trying very hard to find new firms with the capability to export and which can be helped. The regional offices were set a target last year of making 4,000 new contacts on the export side; in fact, they came up with 6,000. My hon. Friend may have seen the advertisements for the £150 introductory offer for firms which have not used BOTB services before. That alone brought in 500 new firms in the last few months of 1984. We did an analysis of a sample of those new customers in one of the regional offices, and it showed a high proportion of small firms, 98 per cent. with fewer than 200 employees, 89 per cent. with fewer than 50, and two-thirds with 10 or fewer employees. So it is very much targeted to helping small firms.
My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the importance of the aid and trade provision, which is a key element frequently in securing projects for British companies in developing countries. I note his views about the balance between the bilateral and the multilateral aid programme. That again is a matter primarily for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, but I note my hon. Friend's view. Since its introduction in 1977, ATP support of about £350 million has secured 95 projects with a United Kingdom content of £1,500 million — a dam in Malaysia, an undersea cable in Indonesia, a coal mine in Egypt, a power station in India, the upgrading of an airport in Sri Lanka. They are some examples of orders won for British companies. When we win orders such as those, frequently only 20 per cent. of the value stays with the major contractor. About two thirds of the value might go to a wide range of smaller firms scattered round the country.
The £1,500 million of orders that I have mentioned will have led to many thousands of man years of work for a wide range of British companies. They will lead also to follow-on business in a variety of ways, either through repeat projects in the same developing countries or because of the shop window effect leading to similar projects in other countries.
If one wins a project, and a firm secures or maintains a presence in a developing country, that firm will be far better placed to win a range of future projects. Those benefits are, in the jargon, additional. Without ATP, the projects would have gone to other aid offers, typically from the French or Japanese, but indeed almost from any developed country, such is the growing intensity of international competition.
ATP was introduced to match the practices of others, and more and more countries have introduced similar measures. There is growing concern internationally about the potential trade distortions which arise from the

increasing use of those measures, and it is certainly not in Britain's interests for trade to be determined by the amount of public finance countries are willing to provide for capital projects in developing countries. Within the OECD my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I are pressing, with strong American support, for steps to control and reduce such distortions. But while those distortions exist my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I are not prepared to disarm unilaterally to the disadvantage of British companies. I welcome my hon. Friend's robust support in this matter, which heartens us in our task. I note his views on the Byatt report and I echo what he says about the effects of the consensus and better value for money as time goes on. I note his references to the NEDO report.
It is, or course, crucial that ATP should be operated as effectively as possible. It is particularly necessary to cut down bureaucracy, because inevitably a number of Departments are involved. We have taken some important steps towards streamlining those procedures. New delegated authorities to ODA mean less frequent consultations with the Treasury, although the Treasury has an important role in this matter. It is certainly my aim that no British company should lose a project because Whitehall has been dragging its feet. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of ATP, and I shall ensure that his points are carefully studied.
Let me put in perspective what my hon. Friend has been saying. He said that we are a trading country. Last year we saw some significant achievements by British firms in exporting. The volume of our exports in 1984 went up by approximately 7½ per cent., and that is not — I repeat, not — mainly oil. Leaving out erratic items, our manufacturing exports, for example, increased by 10 per cent. over the previous year. That healthy upward trend is continuing with the trade figures for February that came out last week. Leaving out the erratic items, the past three months compared with the same three months a year ago showed that our exports of manufactured goods are up 12 per cent. That is much higher than the volume increase in similar terms for imports, which was about half that figure. That is a highly important factor in the overall growth of output in this country. My hon. Friend is right about that. Today we saw further evidence that that momentum is continuing from the Confederation of British Industry survey, which stated that the balance of firms reporting that export orders were above normal was the highest since 1977.
Those figures are very good. However, one does not want only figures. Perhaps one wants to look at the actual cases occasionally. For example, when I look at some of the 250 applications for the Export Award for Smaller Businesses, I find them extraordinary in what they manage to achieve and the way that they are scattered all round the country. For example, a company making split key rings with 19 employees has doubled its exports for the past two years. A firm of 10 employees making church furnishings raised its exports from £5,000 in 1983 to nearly £500,000 in 1984. I could go on giving other examples.
The common theme is a strong spirit of enterprise, the will to get on and overcome the difficulties and a great deal of professionalism in running companies and getting into exports. Such small companies have problems in finding the right markets, investigating them and then getting a foothold in them. That is where the export services can and, I believe, do help. A small amount invested in


helping those firms brings a flow of extra exports over the years. That is good both for the firms and for the United Kingdom. It helps firms spread the risk between different markets and exposes them to new ideas in product development and marketing from the international competition, which in turn helps to improve performance at home. Also, those exports bring new demand into the country, and that means more jobs for the firms themselves and the towns and villages where they are based.
My hon. Friend has done the House a service tonight in allowing me to outline to the House our priorities in this area and our commitment to export promotion. Of course, no programme can be exempt from rigorous public expenditure scrutiny and restraint, but I believe that the measures that the Government are taking will be effective in producing more exports and more jobs, particularly for smaller firms.
My hon. Friend raised several detailed points about the BOTB's proposals, which it announced this afternoon, for the detailed allocation of its budget. I shall make sure that the board carefully considers what my hon. Friend has said.
One of the reasons why there is a lower budget share for fairs, which particularly concerned my hon. Friend, is that the income from the charges for that service has been increased, particularly from those firms that have been going regularly for some time and are established in the market. There will be some cutback in the number of events supported in the next two years, but I hope that the higher percentage discount for first-timers in particular will make better use of resources and be helpful to small firms trying to break into a market for the first time. It is for the BOTB and the business men who run it to make proposals for the detailed allocation of money. That is a sensible way of running a programme that is designed primarily to be of use to British business.
Our export services do a good job. The figures for 1985 are encouraging. My hon. Friend raised several extremely valuable points, including the one about the Foreign and Commonwealth Office review. We are in constant touch with the Foreign Office on staffing. We make changes in between its four-year reviews — for example, we recently strengthened the New York office.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important debate, which will be of considerable use to us.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to One o'clock.